fedizen@mastodon.social how is this relevant to ActivityPub?

mapache@hachyderm.io just use NodeBB and call it a day

No better place to talk ActivityPub than the fediverse! evan@cosocial.ca radhitya@pl.100indie.org reiver@mastodon.social

> Getting a critical mass of people to create yet another account was always a major obstacle. I see and have experienced this effect time and time again, and we're getting closer and closer to the point where the protocol implementations can abstract away the messy bits. Gaining critical mass among devs is the first step!

Hey rimu@piefed.social thanks for responding (and sorry for the late reply!) I am not married to the Announce([Article|Note|Page]) approach, so I am definitely open to Create([Article|Note|Page]) with a back-reference. I think I went the former direction because there is a known fallback mechanism — the Announce is treated as a share/boost/repost as normal. However, sending the Create also is fine I think. However, do we need a backreference? In my limited research, it seems that Piefed, et al. picks the first Group actor and associates the post with that community. If I sent over a Create(Article) with two Group actors addressed, could Piefed associate the post with the first, and initiate a cross-post with the remaining Group actors? Secondly, is how to handle sync. 1b12 relies on communities having reciprocal followers in order for two-way synchronization to be established. On my end since I know it is cross-posted I will now send 1b12 activities to cross-posted communities, but can Piefed, et al. send 1b12 activities back as well, in the absence of followers? cc andrew_s@piefed.social nutomic@lemmy.ml melroy@kbin.melroy.org bentigorlich@gehirneimer.de

@mario@hub.somaton.com thanks, I tested that payload and it successfully edited the post, so at least from the payload point of view there is no issue. Perhaps there is a problem with the http signature on update? Is that handled differently than a create?