@[email protected] Hey, I'm really sorry for all this dogpile. You shouldn't be getting this kind of flack when you took the time to implement ActivityPub.

Thanks for your work. I'm trying it out as @[email protected] and I have to say it's a really lovely UI. I'll give any feedback I can on the ActivityPub implementation.

Of course, you can just bang on the API until you get 429 restricted, too.

I added a ticket here: https://github.com/swicg/activitypub-http-signature/issues/65

@[email protected] I wonder if you've had this problem and how you worked around it.

Another possibility is that when someone asks to have their content shared, that will result in a few Follow requests, which does result in their future content being distributed to other servers (and public content goes to Fediverse and hashtag feeds).

So, it seems like the sharing is what got the distribution going, even though it is indirect (sharing causes following causes appearing in the Fediverse feed).

@julian yes, I agree. This is a different idea -- that somehow interaction between actors on different servers will make their servers connect and share data. It's incorrect, but it's interesting.

@julian here's an example I found with a search:

https://f.bumblebee.systems/@bumblebee/113834766747645985

Here's another:

https://mstdn.kevinthetechguy.ca/@kevinlovestech/112873393455953967

@[email protected] really? How does it work?

@lobingera As far as I can tell, no other W3C protocols use logical clocks.

@julian It's been a great multi-implementer effort, both from the long-form text producers and the microblogging services.

@[email protected] one warning about doing ActivityPub development with LLMs: codeberg.org blocks a lot of LLMs for training and for RAG/MCP. Since FEPs are hosted there, I've found that searching for information on FEPs will result in incorrect information.

[email protected] I've been using web+acct for the acct URI format.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acct_URI_scheme

I see two reasons this could happen:

1. C's server or client software doesn't know how to include the context
2. C intentionally wanted to remove their reply to B from the context. It's a semi-private aside.

I think you'd want to backfill in case 1 but not in case 2. But I don't think there's an easy way to tell which is which.

I added a FEP today: https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/pulls/945

@julian So, there are a few ways to handle this.

First, the b2b8 recommendation on the summary is just a guideline, not a strict requirement (thus the 'about').

A common practice in news-style text is that the first paragraph is a lede that summarizes the article's main points.

For example, in this article, Lawrence Summers Will Resign From Harvard After Epstein Revelations, the first paragraph is:

> Lawrence H. Summers, a Harvard University economist and the school’s former president, will resign from teaching at the end of the academic year, according to a Harvard spokesman.

Some bloggers follow a similar practice, especially since blogging software often uses the first paragraph as the summary in RSS and Atom feeds.

I think if I were generating a summary for long-form text, I'd use these techniques in roughly descending order:

• Manual override; an optional way for the user to define a summary manually - either with a marker in the text, or with a separate input element (I think WordPress does this).
• Use the whole text if it meets the rough guidelines (~1 paragraph, a few sentences, about 500 chars) in b2b8.
• Use the first paragraph if it meets the rough guidelines (a few sentences, about 500 chars) in b2b8.
• Truncate the first paragraph and include an ellipsis ().

This is also something that LLMs are pretty good at. So, maybe rather than truncating (last option), consider using an LLM to generate a summary that meets the boundary requirements.