@zoul this is an important point and one I've been thinking about too. In the #XMPP world, we have generic servers and let the clients do whatever they want on top of it, which means the same account can be used for various purposes. I was wondering why this wasn't so in the #ActivityPub world, so it's good to know there's no particular reason for it and it can be that way if we want it to be!

It'd also reduce work for new projects as they "just" have to implement a client, not a server

There are good reasons for the work being on the servers. They are just not explained / ignored in the ActivityPub specification documents.

The reason is roughly: The data model of ActivityPub has no integrity mechanism. This is patched by requiring users to trust their origin server and servers communicating through signed messages.

@helge interesting: this is a little over my head so could you tell me a bit more? Do you mean at the level of "the server can impersonate any of its users and make them say whatever it wants" or also at the schema level somehow?

I suppose the server impersonation thing is a potential issue and would need some kind of keys/signing to solve, but I can''t see how that relates to tighter or looser coupling between client and server

I'm talking here about the Fediverse and my experience with it (including ActivityPub).

Due to the data model: A server needs to store / understand all the data owned by the server. This is due to

• the nature of ActivityPub objects being fetchable by their id (a HTTPS uri).
• people often expecting a HTML version if they click on the object

This means all outgoing stuff needs to be tracked and understood by the server! Due to the desire of coordinating replies / like counts / etc ... the server also needs to understand the incoming traffic.

@helge @badrihippo Having tried to build a generic ActivityPub server, I can confirm: this is very difficult, maybe impossible. The server needs to understand the payloads -- in order to generate collections, for example. And security implications of allowing arbitrary activities are not quite clear.

However, I think a modified version of ActivityPub protocol could support generic servers.

@silverpill @helge @badrihippo

Do you have a sense of what you feel would need to be modified with ActivityPub to make it work?

@reiver @silverpill @helge @badrihippo

@zoul I really want a generic server. In that case I would have to start developing one of my own?

A generic server that has support to Mastodon, Lemmy and Peertube API would be awesome

@reiver @silverpill @helge @badrihippo

@julian@activitypub.space @julian@community.nodebb.org
@by_caballero

full ack.
We are working heavily towards a generic server and in deed it is super important what Helge decribes but anyway, we need to come together.

original:
„the client APIs necessary to make this a reality haven't seen much development“

But many people want this.
We should change that now and meet.
After organizing the first official Confs https://conf.tube/c/apconf_channel/videos (tons of videos) I advised the EU for DMA and DSA and then Client To Server was eye-opening for them.

My last Talks (e.g. together with funder at fediday) and those after had been in German but when we showed the AP Client2Server boardgame at Public Spaces it was english https://video.publicspaces.net/w/9USsJ37cHVy4tY9Pn7DX2X

So, if anyone is interested in a nice dev. meeting about this topic apart from the new taskforces, please comment here !

@sl007

I am happy to do a video call with anyone interested. (Assuming that is what you were suggesting.)

We would just need to figure out a day and time for it.

cc: @silverpill @helge @badrihippo @julian@activitypub.space @julian@community.nodebb.org @by_caballero

@reiver @silverpill @helge @badrihippo @julian@activitypub.space @julian@community.nodebb.org @by_caballero

very nice, that was my suggestion.
I am just coding all day and so I'm very flexible.