Scarly the Raven @scarly@computerfairi.es

@Kyresti tbh, that seems like an absolute delight! hahaha

i actually really like otters too XD

@porsupah there's something super delightful about shy bunny taking pictures of shy bunnies :D

@Mebbles@snouts.online ooo, i like clarence tbh - he's super cute <3

thank u! :3

@porsupah oh my goodness, those pics are incredible!! :O

@porsupah bunnies are always a delight tbh!

someone pls, send me cute cat pictures, i need some brain bleach from the drama, hahaha

@Gargron as a practical observation, you could have simply muted this conversation and moved on

it was not me that tagged you originally. i assume that you know this because you did remove the reply guy from your backhanded slap.

if you don't want to be tagged when the reply guys come after me then tell them that. do you understand? thanks!

@jaz @Gargron hey, do me a favor? please shove off. there's a huge difference between entertainment, pleroma, and pig farming. i assume that you can figure that out?

@drzaiusx11 @TheHottestPotato
if thunderbird suddenly changes how it works, then that affects thunderbird users. if mastodon changes its api, then that affects other instance servers that are mastodon compatible, all mastodon tools, all proprietary and non proprietary apps. there are a ton of side effects in this scenario that create work downstream and can cause a loss of interoperability.

it's disengenious to suggest that an API is the same as an email client.

@drzaiusx11 @TheHottestPotato analogies aren't the best way to talk about this, but ill bite.

an email client is not the same thing as the api for an instance of mastodon. what you're talking about is more on the level of Tootdon or Toot! than it is on the level of mastodon. we're talking about different levels of abstraction.

@TheHottestPotato you can't have a usable pure AP client because AP doesn't define a large part of what you need to make software usable

interfaces for posting, moderation, etc - these require an api. you seem to be suggesting that this is not part of federation. pedantically speaking, sure, but realistically speaking - the simple act of pushing messages between servers is useless without an interface for people to manipulate those messages in meaningful ways

@nutomic except that the developers of other projects are trying to work together, but the addendum to what gargron said is that the api documentation is not going to speak to interoperability.

i'm sorry but that definitely is something that mastodon is at fault for, because it's within gargron's power to maintain a healthy ecosystem for the fediverse. app developers will likely not try to implement multiple apis

if mastodon is exclusionary then that's a problem

@TheHottestPotato the ActivityPub specification defines server to server communication as well as server to client communication. without the clients to create the activities, nothing would be federating. the two elements are both necessary in order for AP to work.

the AP specification does stop short of providing for the things that mastodon's api provides for. however, to me, it would make more sense to modify the specification than splintering the fediverse

no really if you're going to disagree with something i write, characterizing it as "this is absurd" is probably the least effective form of argument possible

@elchapo off you go

gargron is now on record as saying that the mastodon api is only for mastodon

https://mastodon.social/@Gargron/101489738840502100

what this basically means is that the mastodon ecosystem of apps, helpful tools, etc will only ever be reliably compatible with mastodon with the rest of us jumping through hoops to try to reverse engineer it

so, in summary, a community that is allegedly federated actually does have an avenue through which one platform can control it. just fact.

makes u think?