Looks like it’s this vid: https://framatube.org/w/9dRFC6Ya11NCVeYKn8ZhiD

You shouldn’t read too much into being banned from 50 communities - it’s just a fudgy workaround for being banned from the instance.

If you want to read up on people’s objections, there’s load of comments at https://lemmy.world/post/18805474 and the GitHub Issue it links to at https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/4967

I’m not personally in favour of ideas about voting privacy (I think it’s a bit anti-Fediverse and hampers backfilling), but those who disagree tend to feel more strongly about it than I do, so I try to avoid arguments about it.

I think they still need a separate user account. For one thing, a PeerTube channel is ‘attributedTo’ the user account, in the same way that Lemmy communities are ‘attributedTo’ the moderators. A Group belongs to at least one Person, it can’t belong to itself. Another is that it allows for creators to comment on videos, and either be recognised as the ‘OP’, or as a fellow content creator.

In terms of rendering things like Likes and Dislikes, it has the info in the backend, so it may as well. They don’t Announce votes like Lemmy does, you have to activitely fetch them, so the channel as it exists on PeerTube provides a definitive source. Likewise, there’s all sorts of reasons why comments get out of sync, so the channel provides an authoritative place where you should be able to see them all.

There is a friction though. I like the idea of a place that only open to people willing to create content, and isn’t interested in signups from ‘lurkers’, but providing a mobile app doesn’t seem compatible with that.

they seem to only give accounts to creators

That doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. I’ll get in trouble for saying it, but I think that PeerTube is for video channels what Lemmy should be for communities. It should be that if you want to start or moderate a community, then you sign up to Lemmy, but if you just want to interact with one, you use a user account provided by software that’s fully geared up around users (e.g. Mastodon).

Ignoring for the moment that Lemmy’s federation model hasn’t been widely adopted, and that comments from Mastodon that appear in Lemmy often have annoying Hashtag / Mention spam, my fantasy version of a post in a Lemmy community would look something like https://tilvids.com/w/wjTD7fp9qy4KmTkBdSoWyc, which was created by a PeerTube user, but has been commented on and voted for by users from Mastodon, Sharkey, PieFed, other PeerTube instances, and MBIN.

Amongst those subscribers, commenters, and voters should be Lemmy users, of course. In this thread, it feels like PeerTube is being criticised by people who want to use it in a way that it’s not designed for, because they can’t interact with it from their Lemmy account. If inter-op was better, there’d be no need to create a new account anywhere, and it would have a network effect - the channels that people are trying to discover would already have been brought in by other users, and findable through a conventional Lemmy search. Also, the votes and comments from Lemmy users that are currently going to whoever takes a PeerTube video and posts it in the likes of !videos@lemmy.world, would instead be going to original creator. This would also aid discovery (since people would be more likely to see the channel in ‘all’), and might have also some incentivising influence on the creator.

Basically, I blame Lemmy.

That view of The Linux Experiment is quite similar to the view from lemmy.ml, with the latest post also being from 9 months ago. I wonder if your PeerTube instance and Lemmy 0.19.x have the same problem, where “something changed” at PeerTube, and new videos stopped appearing at federated sites that didn’t change to accommodate the update. Are you running an old PeerTube version?

alien.top got people’s ire because it created a different bot account for every Reddit user, but this one just looks like it posts everything as ‘LemmyLinkBot’, with the Reddit user as the first line a post / comment.

Nothing. It wasn’t about the edit.

I’ve said elsewhere that I thought your second follow-up question was disingenuous, so I’ll expand on that here. That’s the thing that annoyed me. Not because I think no-one should question me, or because no-one should inquire further, but because the more questions you want to ask about a particular thing, the more informed those questions need to be. Otherwise it just gets tedious, explaining why irrelevant things are irrelevant. User display names aren’t relevant to an API’s ‘/site’ response; ActivityPub isn’t relevant at all, and ‘name’ is such a generic, widely-used word, that reaching for it as evidence that I might be confused is such a stretch, I don’t know why you’d go for it. It made me question your motive, given that the likelihood of you being correct - after fishing a word out from something you don’t seem that experienced with - is so low. It stops reading as a well-intentioned question, and starts reading as scepticism for scepticism’s sake.

I made one arsey comment, and you replied to it 9 times. It was only ever going to get pedantic. It’s too late to complain about it now.

I don’t know. I’m still hung up about this ‘references’ thing, I think. It reads like you intend for your post to be an objective resource for others to use, but then fall back to it being good enough for your subjective purpose when questioned about it.

It feels like wanting to have your cake and eat it - a authoritative-looking post that isn’t authoritative.

it’s silly to ask you for advice because you don’t use Lemmy

That was never my argument. I think you know this.

Being reluctant to answer any more questions about a topic doesn’t mean I was wrong to provide an initial answer. It just means my bandwidth has been exceeded. If Lemmy was a project I was invested in, and I didn’t think your second follow-up question was disingenuous, then it would’ve been different, but as things were, I resented being given homework about it.

I’m not sure, either.

I can imagine, though, that if Lemmy automatically inserted the original post author in replies as a Mention, it would be indistinguishable from when it’s done manually to page another user. So if you made a post as a Lemmy user, every reply in the comment chain would show up in your Notifications.

You and db0 are doing different things - he has blog that Lemmy users can interact with as if it was another Lemmy community, whereas you have a blog that you want to use to post articles into a different Lemmy community.

A reply is sent from Lemmy twice - once to the community to Announce out to its followers, and once to the person being replied to. A top-level reply will appear on the WordPress blog because it is a reply to the author. A reply to a reply won’t, because the blog is not following the Lemmy community (so won’t get the Announce), and the author isn’t the person being replied to.

If you want a reply to a reply to also appear on WordPress, you need to treat it like Mastodon, and also Mention the original author. Here is an example that also appeared on the blog: https://lemmy.world/comment/14897939 (the reply from ‘freamon’)

TootSweet’s link was to a migration. A migration is used to upgrade a database’s schema - changing the limit on username length from whatever it was, to 255. As it happens, it’s still 255 now, but an upgrade from 3 years ago isn’t a good source for that, because as they themselves said, there could very well have been been upgrades since, that further changed the limit.

I used ‘unscientific’ because it would be a pain in the arse for someone else to reproduce, it only applies to one instance, it’s a test on someone else’s in-production system that you have no control over, and the error that returns isn’t necessarily from the backend. It looks more like a Form Validation error (i.e. from the frontend). It’s perfectly possible to create a frontend that puts it’s own limits on username length, and there’s some that no doubt already exist, so a brute-force test of those limits isn’t telling you anything reliable about what Lemmy’s internal limits are.

I think the way you were using references started to wind me up. It gave some academic veneer to a format that usually more conversational. They’re just links to what some people reckon, but dressed up with ‘accessed’ and ‘published’ in a footnote format that in other other contexts would suggest a level of credibility that they don’t have. Either something is solved or it isn’t, but it shouldn’t be marked ‘solved’ with links to answers of questionable accuracy.

Is it? Maybe. If I was using software, and asked a question that the developers of it could easily answer, and they didn’t, I might think about using something else. It certainly would’ve helped though, if you’d got an answer from someone you were more ready to believe.

I think you can be an outsider to a particular system, and still be able to provide valuable information about it. Enough to be able to satisfy your own curiosity, and hopefully someone else’s too. I can imagine a version of this post where you asked what the max username length was, I gave you a means to find out, and we both went on our way. So you can be ‘right person’ to comment on a post, but the ‘wrong person’ when it turns out that your answer isn’t going to be fully accepted without digging into someone else’s source code. As for who the right person is in that case, there’s some overlap with your comment about ‘entitlement’, so I’ll continue there.

I saw your edit, yeah. I’m not some precious person who thinks no-one should dare question their claims. To my mind, though, what I said wasn’t a claim. A claim would be if I’d said “lemmy.world is 26, sh.itjustworks is 50” with no further info. Instead, I gave command-line instructions for you to run yourself, so you could get the answers for those instances (and any other instances) from Lemmy’s backend itself. If I wasn’t reasonably sure that the backend was giving you the numbers you were looking for, I wouldn’t have mentioned it.

I wasn’t reacting to being questioned, though, I was reacting to being singled-out for being questioned. You marked this as “Solved” based - also - on a test from you, and an answer from TootSweet, but it didn’t look like to me that you ever questioned whether those answers deserved a follow-up. Neither of those, in my opinion, are really good enough, but I’ll say why in the answers to your individual comments about them.

I’m not used to this level of rigour to be honest. You’ve accepted your own unscientific prodding of one particular instance as an answer, and one link to a years-old migration as a answer, but I give you reproducible command-line instructions, which match up with your own findings, and it’s apparently not good enough.

Anyway, as that migration shows, Lemmy distinguishes between ‘name’ for username, and ‘display_name’ for the display name. A better link for this is arguably https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/blob/main/crates/db_schema/src/schema.rs#L735 but whatever. It’s these fields that are relevant to Lemmy’s API, not the terminology that ActivityPub uses. A client might reasonably want to know the limit for a username (as provided in the Site response), because it’s this that’s used for Signup and Login. Display name is set elsewhere, once that’s done, so it doesn’t make sense for actor_name_max_length to refer to this.

Within ActivityPub, the distinction between username and display name is ‘preferredUsername’ and ‘name’, but AP also uses ‘name’ for a bunch of other things (including but not limited to what becomes a post title, a choice in a poll, or the alt-text for an image). There’s some overlap with how Lemmy’s API refers to stuff (e.g. a post title is a post name), but it not a 1:1 match.

I hope this is enough. I don’t even use Lemmy, so - in my opinion - you’re asking the wrong question to the wrong person. What you should be asking, is - “How come when I post a question to Lemmy’s support community, on the instance owned by Lemmy devs, it looks like they just ignore it?”. You shouldn’t have to be relying on guesswork by amateurs, irrespective of how many ‘references’ they can quote.