@@reiver ⊼ (Charles) :batman: @silverpill This is simply because little is written about Forte on the Web.

However, I was there when Forte was born back in September, 2024. I was on (streams) back then. Mike Macgirvin had implemented FEP-ef61 in the "nomad" branch of the streams repository a few months ago to test it. When he was confident enough, he merged the "nomad" branch into the regular "dev" branch. In July, 2024, he merged the "dev" branch into the "release" branch, causing the FEP-ef61 implementation to be rolled out to daily-driver (streams) servers.

However, it was a maze of Nomad and Zot6 and non-nomadic ActivityPub and FEP-ef61 identities for everything that boiled over. (streams) wouldn't federate with anything anymore, not even with itself. My two still existing (streams) channels, @Jupiter Rowland's (streams) outlet and @Jupiter's Fedi-Memes on (streams), were both affected by this. They were amongst the very first (streams) channels created on an account with FEP-ef61 DID support.

Mike would spend half of the summer trying to figure out what had happened and how to fix it. Even while (streams) was still broken, Forte was born in August, 2024 when Mike forked the streams repository and ripped all traces of Nomad and Zot6 support out, probably also in order to get rid of the corresponding IDs and facilitate debugging.

This means that FEP-ef61, which had literally caused this whole mayhem and which has to be considered responsible for Forte's very existence, was a) implemented in the streams repository when it was forked into Forte and b) not removed from Forte post-fork. It would not have made any sense to remove FEP-ef61 when one reason why Forte was made at that point in history was in order to debug FEP-ef61.

Sidenotes: Mike managed to fix (streams). This whole issue burned him out so much that he officially quit developing Fediverse software, effective September 1st, 2024, midnight. He still carries on working on both (streams) and Forte because nobody else does, what with how many people even use them.

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Streams #(streams) #Forte #FEP_ef61

@洪 民憙 (Hong Minhee) :nonbinary: Two people you may consider consulting in this case:

• @Mike Macgirvin ?️. He invented nomadic identity in 2011. He was the first to implement it in Red (which became Hubzilla in 2015) in 2012.
  His streams repository, a fork of a fork of three forks of a fork (of a fork?) of Hubzilla, is the place where he laid the foundations of FEP-ef61 out of necessity because he was working on nomadic identity via ActivityPub (Hubzilla and (streams) use their own protocols for that), and it was the first nomadic server software that had it implemented.
  Also, his Forte, itself a fork of the streams repository, is the only Fediverse server software that uses nothing but ActivityPub to establish nomadic identity and relies on FEP-ef61 to do that. Basically, it's (streams) with no Nomad and Zot6 support, and syncing between clones is triggered by a cronjob because, unlike Zot6 and Nomad, ActivityPub doesn't provide any ways to trigger immediate, near-real-time syncs.
  Mike hasn't been caught online for quite a while, though, although he's still working on both (streams) and Forte.
• @silverpill is gradually turning Mitra from a typical non-nomadic, account/login-equals-identity, one-identity-per-account Fediverse software into something that's every bit as nomadic as Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte while casting everything necessary for this process into FEPs.
  I'm not sure whether this will include containerising identities like the channels on Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte and allowing multiple fully independent identities on the same account, just like the same identity (channel) would be able to exist on independent accounts on different servers.

That said, is your goal only to use FEP-ef61 for identities that are tied to their accounts and their servers? Or is your goal fully-fledged nomadic identity on the same level as on Forte?

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Hubzilla #Streams #(streams) #Forte #Mitra #NomadicIdentity #FEP_ef61

@Marcus Rohrmoser 🌻 @Matthias @Lioh Das Problem ist, daß häufig der einzige Standard, an den sich Fediverse-Drittentwickler halten, Mastodon ist. Die bauen ihre Kreationen also nicht gegen als solche definierte Standards, sondern hart gegen Mastodon und nur gegen Mastodon. Vielfach wissen sie nicht mal, daß es außerhalb von Mastodon noch was anderes im Fediverse gibt.

So gehen sie dann felsenfest davon aus, daß jede Profil-URL im Fediverse so aussieht: https://server.tld/users/kurzname.

Und dann wundern sie sich, wenn sich Leute beschweren, daß ihre Kreation nicht mit $SERVERSOFTWARE funktioniert, von der sie noch nie etwas gehört haben.

Nur gibt's eben nicht nur Mastodon und Mastodon-Forks und Software, die gegen Mastodon gebaut wurde. Misskey ist älter als Mastodon, also sind Misskey und die Forkeys da anders aufgebaut. Friendica ist viel älter als Mastodon, also ist es wieder anders, ebenso seine Nachfahren.

A propos: Spätestens seit der Red Matrix, auf jeden Fall aber seit Hubzilla, wird unterschieden zwischen dem eigentlichen Kanal (mit dem Stream, wo man die Posts sieht, also z. B. https://hubzilla.org/channel/jupiter_rowland, und dem Profil, wo man die auch schon mal mehreren Dutzend Profilfelder sieht (wenn man das darf), aber keine Posts, also z. B. https://hubzilla.org/profile/jupiter_rowland. Der Kanal wird meines Wissens als Akteur erkannt, beim Profil bin ich mir nicht sicher.

Auf (streams) und Forte wird es noch wilder, weil die FEP-ef61 "Portable Objects" unterstützen und DIDs verwenden. Das war nötig, um nomadische Identität über ActivityPub zu unterstützen eine zukünftige nomadische Identität über mehrere Serveranwendungen hinweg vorzubereiten. Da gibt's dann

• den Kanal
  https://streams.elsmussols.net/channel/fedimemes_on_streams
• das Profil
  https://streams.elsmussols.net/profile/fedimemes_on_streams
• den Kanal als DID
  https://streams.elsmussols.net/.well-known/apgateway/did:⁠key:z6Mkf2dhUa65zBYCNVqs3AHyt8uPixauZ7bPzEJn15LJANsd/actor

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #LangerPost #CWLangerPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #NichtNurMastodon #Hubzilla #Streams #(streams) #Forte #FEP_ef61

@Strypey That's a pretty major UX fail right there.

Any progress on finalising an FEP for using nomadic identity with AP?
I think it'll take more than that one FEP (FEP-ef61 Portable Objects) to do that. I expect @silverpill to whip up more FEPs in the on-going process of turning Mitra from something like most Fediverse software (non-nomadic, account equals identity) into something that's every bit as nomadic as Forte.

Thing is, Mitra still has a long way to go, also because it aims to have an implementation of nomadic identity that's entirely covered by FEPs. Forte has nomadic identity via ActivityPub, but that's technology adopted from Zot/Nomad that needed to be made to work first and foremost with no regards for FEPs.

Besides, the existence of FEPs doesn't matter as long as Mastodon refuses to adopt them. And Mastodon has already silently rejected client-side support for OpenWebAuth magic sign-on by refusing to merge an existing, ready-to-merge pull request that would have implemented it immediately.

This means we'll probably never even see Mastodon become capable of recognising nomadic channels. And I'm not talking about Mastodon going nomadic itself (which, by the way, would also give Mastodon the easy account moving that its users have been craving for for so long).

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Mastodon #Mitra #Forte #NomadicIdentity #FEP_ef61

@Helge Are you aware of FEP-ef61 "Portable Objects"? It already uses DIDs, and it is implemented on (streams), Forte, Mitra and Tootik as far as stable releases go.

It is one puzzle piece in implementing nomadic identity, as available on Hubzilla since 2012, via ActivityPub without any help from other protocols. This is reality on Forte already now.

#FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Streams #(streams) #Forte #Mitra #Tootik #DIDs #FEP_ef61 #NomadicIdentity

@Julian Fietkau I'm surprised to read that (streams) allegedly has FEP-e232 implemented. As I happen to have two (streams) channels myself, and as (streams) allows me to have a look at the whole source code of any activity (whereas Hubzilla only shows me that of the content), I've checked a fairly recent post of mine that includes a link. And while it does define the hashtags just like Mastodon and Hubzilla, it does not define links in a way that conforms to FEP-e232. Either that, or (streams)' implementation of FEP-e232 is newer than the software was when I sent that post.



Next, I wanted to see if (streams) had its way of quote-posting changed in the last seven years or so of development and forking. I expected it to quote-post like Hubzilla, namely by turning a BBcode short code into a dumb copy of the original upon sending, but I wanted to see proof. As (streams) is a fork of a fork of three forks of a fork (of a fork) of Hubzilla that's still maintained by Hubzilla's own creator, I would have been surprised if he had changed the way (streams) quote-posts at some point on the way.

So I quote-posted my own post on (streams) just to see what happens. And (streams) acted exactly like Hubzilla and not at all like described in FEP-044f on the surface. It still inserts a dumb copy.

Good thing I have access to the full source code of any message on (streams). So here's what happened, namely what I expected to happen: (streams) quote-posts like Hubzilla.

First of all, when I clicked the "Share" button, this short code was inserted into the post editor:

[share⁠=1198713][/share]

The number, by the way, is the running number of the message to quote-post on the server.

Upon sending the post, (streams) automatically "expanded" the short code into the dumb copy I had expected.

[⁠share author='Jupiter+Rowland' profile='https://hub.netzgemeinde.eu/channel/jupiter_rowland' portable_id='_moYLN61-o3FbP3jyThygMDf-bjF2cApXgkrwlAE77iKy19xM1_6F06V4b71eTkqqNaTUjGiN0lfw2dyn5nXRw' avatar='https://streams.elsmussols.net/xp/6b50efa4bb804860f6128bba791b74fab4a0a5e09dbcbee8d8ca77cee00f0330-6' link='https://hub.netzgemeinde.eu/item/0a1cdda5-eb1c-4a33-9574-ddd896977b4f' auth='true' posted='2025-09-21 19:42:56' message_id='https://hub.netzgemeinde.eu/item/0a1cdda5-eb1c-4a33-9574-ddd896977b4f'] ...(the source code of the original message goes here)... [/share]

Both Hubzilla and (streams) render this the same way, namely with a header line above the copy that includes the profile picture of the original author, the name of the original author with a Zot/Nomad-type link to their channel/account and a Zot/Nomad-type link to the original of the post ("Zot/Nomad-type" means that [zrl][/zrl] is used rather than [url][/url] which means that the ID of an observer on Hubzilla/(streams)/Forte is attached to the link for OpenWebAuth identity recognition purposes.)

At the same time, curiously, (streams) includes the line "rel": "https://misskey-hub.net/ns#_misskey_quote" and a line that starts with "name": "RE: and continues with the URL of the original message into the code for the link to the original message. The latter is identical to what Misskey and all Forkeys have in quote-posting notes in plain sight, only that (streams) only reveals it in the source code rather than in the content as well.

So this part of FEP-044f is implemented, albeit concealed from most people and only happening in the code.



Now, looking at the quote policy part, that looks like it could be possible to add to the Fediverse's permission champions Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte. After all, they already have comment controls with no FEP backing it (and if GoToSocial's quote policy can be made into an FEP, maybe so can (streams)' and Forte's comment controls so that they actually do blank out reply buttons on the farther ends of the Fediverse if the software on the farther ends implement support for that FEP).

This could be done at three levels again. I'll illustrate this with (streams) and Forte because they're quite a bit less complex than older Hubzilla.

At channel level, quote-posting (and maybe quoting as well) could be set as usually, namely to semi-public (= everyone in the Fediverse = no quote policy), restricted (= only your contacts) and only yourself. (Seriously, you don't want random passersby with no accounts to quote-post you. Even though you can allow them to comment on your posts if you dare.)

"Only yourself" could be overridden at contact level by permitting certain contacts to quote-post (and maybe quote) your messages. This is actually standard behaviour on (streams) and Forte.

And then there is the per-post level which would be similar to (streams)' and Forte's comment controls. These allow you to limit who may comment on a post to only your contacts and those who have already participated in the same conversation, and they allow you to turn off comments altogether.

Quote authorisation would not be much different in handling from manually moderating comments from those who technically aren't permitted to comment (only that spammers don't quote-post, at least not yet, and they probably never will because that simply makes no sense). So that'd be nothing really new.

Of course, this would have some limitations which come from how Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte work and from their conversation architecture.

The first limitation is that you could only give certain contacts permission to quote-post your posts if you didn't give it to the whole Fediverse. Channel-wide permissions are always inherited by contact-specific permissions, and this cannot be overridden. So you couldn't generally allow everyone to quote-post your posts except for one certain contact of yours.

The second limitation is that you can only control the permissions of contacts, but not of non-contacts. So you can't disallow some stranger whom you aren't connected to to quote-post your posts while everyone else is allowed.

Then again, FEP-044f doesn't make either of these two possible either. It can only define who is permitted to quote-post a post, not who isn't.

The third limitation is that, on Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte, comments always have the same permissions as the post that they belong to because comments always have the same owner as the post that they belong to. Basically, if FEP-044f was to be defined for each comment individually, it would have a chance of clashing with conversation containers as per FEP-171b.

Here on Hubzilla, as well as from (streams)' point of view, everyone's comments in this thread are owned by me because I've started the thread. And the permissions on all these comments are defined by my post. I've seen my share of permission clashes whenever someone on Mastodon replied to a public post or a public comment with a DM, and Hubzilla overrode this by forcing the permissions of the post on that reply.

In practice, this means that the quote policies of all comments would be the same as that of the post. At least that's how Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte would understand them because the concept of comments having different permissions than the post is alien to them. So if you say that I'm not permitted to quote-post your comment, but I say that anyone can quote-post my post, Hubzilla and (streams) override the quote policy that you've given your comment on Mastodon with the quote policy that I've given my post on Hubzilla, and I can quote-post you.

So the actually difficult part would be to implement an exception in how Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte handle comment permissions for quote policies and make them individual for each comment rather than making comments inherit them from the post.

Well, and lastly, if you permitted all your contacts to quote-post a post of yours, and you had a few more contacts, the "canQuote" section would end up monstrous. (A bit less so if you could cherry-pick those who are allowed to quote-post you on a per-post base, just like you can cherry-pick those who are allowed to see the post in the first place.) Also, I'm wondering just how well policies as per FEP-044f (and their implementations in various server applications) will work with DIDs as per FEP-ef61 which (streams) and Forte use, and I guess, so does Mitra now.

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #Misskey #Forkey #Forkeys #GoToSocial #Hubzilla #Streams #(streams) #Forte #Mitra #QuotePost #QuotePosts #QuoteTweet #QuoteTweets #QuoteToot #QuoteToots #QuoteBoost #QuoteBoosts #QuotedShares #Permission #Permissions #FEP_044f #FEP_171b #FEP_e232 #FEP_ef61

@Julian Fietkau I'm surprised to read that (streams) allegedly has FEP-e232 implemented. As I happen to have two (streams) channels myself, and as (streams) allows me to have a look at the whole source code of any activity (whereas Hubzilla only shows me that of the content), I've checked a fairly recent post of mine that includes a link. And while it does define the hashtags just like Mastodon and Hubzilla, it does not define links in a way that conforms to FEP-e232. Either that, or (streams)' implementation of FEP-e232 is newer than the software was when I sent that post.



Next, I wanted to see if (streams) had its way of quote-posting changed in the last seven years or so of development and forking. I expected it to quote-post like Hubzilla, namely by turning a BBcode short code into a dumb copy of the original upon sending, but I wanted to see proof. As (streams) is a fork of a fork of three forks of a fork (of a fork) of Hubzilla that's still maintained by Hubzilla's own creator, I would have been surprised if he had changed the way (streams) quote-posts at some point on the way.

So I quote-posted my own post on (streams) just to see what happens. And (streams) acted exactly like Hubzilla and not at all like described in FEP-044f on the surface. It still inserts a dumb copy.

Good thing I have access to the full source code of any message on (streams). So here's what happened, namely what I expected to happen: (streams) quote-posts like Hubzilla.

First of all, when I clicked the "Share" button, this short code was inserted into the post editor:

[share⁠=1198713][/share]

The number, by the way, is the running number of the message to quote-post on the server.

Upon sending the post, (streams) automatically "expanded" the short code into the dumb copy I had expected.

[⁠share author='Jupiter+Rowland' profile='https://hub.netzgemeinde.eu/channel/jupiter_rowland' portable_id='_moYLN61-o3FbP3jyThygMDf-bjF2cApXgkrwlAE77iKy19xM1_6F06V4b71eTkqqNaTUjGiN0lfw2dyn5nXRw' avatar='https://streams.elsmussols.net/xp/6b50efa4bb804860f6128bba791b74fab4a0a5e09dbcbee8d8ca77cee00f0330-6' link='https://hub.netzgemeinde.eu/item/0a1cdda5-eb1c-4a33-9574-ddd896977b4f' auth='true' posted='2025-09-21 19:42:56' message_id='https://hub.netzgemeinde.eu/item/0a1cdda5-eb1c-4a33-9574-ddd896977b4f'] ...(the source code of the original message goes here)... [/share]

Both Hubzilla and (streams) render this the same way, namely with a header line above the copy that includes the profile picture of the original author, the name of the original author with a Zot/Nomad-type link to their channel/account and a Zot/Nomad-type link to the original of the post ("Zot/Nomad-type" means that [zrl][/zrl] is used rather than [url][/url] which means that the ID of an observer on Hubzilla/(streams)/Forte is attached to the link for OpenWebAuth identity recognition purposes.)

At the same time, curiously, (streams) includes the line "rel": "https://misskey-hub.net/ns#_misskey_quote" and a line that starts with "name": "RE: and continues with the URL of the original message into the code for the link to the original message. The latter is identical to what Misskey and all Forkeys have in quote-posting notes in plain sight, only that (streams) only reveals it in the source code rather than in the content as well.

So this part of FEP-044f is implemented, albeit concealed from most people and only happening in the code.



Now, looking at the quote policy part, that looks like it could be possible to add to the Fediverse's permission champions Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte. After all, they already have comment controls with no FEP backing it (and if GoToSocial's quote policy can be made into an FEP, maybe so can (streams)' and Forte's comment controls so that they actually do blank out reply buttons on the farther ends of the Fediverse if the software on the farther ends implement support for that FEP).

This could be done at three levels again. I'll illustrate this with (streams) and Forte because they're quite a bit less complex than older Hubzilla.

At channel level, quote-posting (and maybe quoting as well) could be set as usually, namely to semi-public (= everyone in the Fediverse = no quote policy), restricted (= only your contacts) and only yourself. (Seriously, you don't want random passersby with no accounts to quote-post you. Even though you can allow them to comment on your posts if you dare.)

"Only yourself" could be overridden at contact level by permitting certain contacts to quote-post (and maybe quote) your messages. This is actually standard behaviour on (streams) and Forte.

And then there is the per-post level which would be similar to (streams)' and Forte's comment controls. These allow you to limit who may comment on a post to only your contacts and those who have already participated in the same conversation, and they allow you to turn off comments altogether.

Quote authorisation would not be much different in handling from manually moderating comments from those who technically aren't permitted to comment (only that spammers don't quote-post, at least not yet, and they probably never will because that simply makes no sense). So that'd be nothing really new.

Of course, this would have some limitations which come from how Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte work and from their conversation architecture.

The first limitation is that you could only give certain contacts permission to quote-post your posts if you didn't give it to the whole Fediverse. Channel-wide permissions are always inherited by contact-specific permissions, and this cannot be overridden. So you couldn't generally allow everyone to quote-post your posts except for one certain contact of yours.

The second limitation is that you can only control the permissions of contacts, but not of non-contacts. So you can't disallow some stranger whom you aren't connected to to quote-post your posts while everyone else is allowed.

Then again, FEP-044f doesn't make either of these two possible either. It can only define who is permitted to quote-post a post, not who isn't.

The third limitation is that, on Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte, comments always have the same permissions as the post that they belong to because comments always have the same owner as the post that they belong to. Basically, if FEP-044f was to be defined for each comment individually, it would have a chance of clashing with conversation containers as per FEP-171b.

Here on Hubzilla, as well as from (streams)' point of view, everyone's comments in this thread are owned by me because I've started the thread. And the permissions on all these comments are defined by my post. I've seen my share of permission clashes whenever someone on Mastodon replied to a public post or a public comment with a DM, and Hubzilla overrode this by forcing the permissions of the post on that reply.

In practice, this means that the quote policies of all comments would be the same as that of the post. At least that's how Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte would understand them because the concept of comments having different permissions than the post is alien to them. So if you say that I'm not permitted to quote-post your comment, but I say that anyone can quote-post my post, Hubzilla and (streams) override the quote policy that you've given your comment on Mastodon with the quote policy that I've given my post on Hubzilla, and I can quote-post you.

So the actually difficult part would be to implement an exception in how Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte handle comment permissions for quote policies and make them individual for each comment rather than making comments inherit them from the post.

Well, and lastly, if you permitted all your contacts to quote-post a post of yours, and you had a few more contacts, the "canQuote" section would end up monstrous. (A bit less so if you could cherry-pick those who are allowed to quote-post you on a per-post base, just like you can cherry-pick those who are allowed to see the post in the first place.) Also, I'm wondering just how well policies as per FEP-044f (and their implementations in various server applications) will work with DIDs as per FEP-ef61 which (streams) and Forte use, and I guess, so does Mitra now.

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #Misskey #Forkey #Forkeys #GoToSocial #Hubzilla #Streams #(streams) #Forte #Mitra #QuotePost #QuotePosts #QuoteTweet #QuoteTweets #QuoteToot #QuoteToots #QuoteBoost #QuoteBoosts #QuotedShares #Permission #Permissions #FEP_044f #FEP_171b #FEP_e232 #FEP_ef61