> One weakness I have noticed in NodeBB's current federation is that posts which are in reply to a topic (e.g. a Lemmy comment) show up as individual threads until (or if) the root post of that topic shows up in the local NodeBB. No, Lemmy does not implement either strategy, they rely on 1b12 only. If NodeBB is receiving parts of a topic that don't resolve up to the root-level post that might be something we can fix. I'll try to take a look at it.

rwg@aoir.social I'm not actually sure! You'll have to ask reiver@mastodon.social about that one. Let me know too!

thisismissem@hachyderm.io oh god do I have to handle this too

trwnh@mastodon.social before, I was not sending Accept at all, now I am sending application/jrd+json.

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

@mastodonmigration@mastodon.online while this is a known workaround, I don't think it's a tenable long-term solution. You can have "real decentralization" without the quirks, too.

@philipp@social.anoxinon.de I kind of think this is really missing the forest for the trees if your rational is CO2 emissions... I mean, a far greater generator of CO2 emissions would be every single Mastodon instance caching every piece of media it sees...

@deadsuperhero@social.wedistribute.org glad to hear it! I'm planning to continue working on improving our ActivityPub integration in 2025, hopefully with NLNet funding again