What I like about this is that clients that don't know this convention will still stick it in the same thread. And I feel it's in the spirit of the old pre-hash (subject) convention, though that's before my time.
I guess it may not work when the edited twt itself is a reply, and there are replies to it. Maybe that could be solved by letting twts have more than one (subject) prefix.
> But the great thing about the current system is that nobody can spoof message IDs.
I don't think twtxt hashes are long enough to prevent spoofing.
What I like about this is that clients that don't know this convention will still stick it in the same thread. And I feel it's in the spirit of the old pre-hash (subject) convention, though that's before my time.
I guess it may not work when the edited twt itself is a reply, and there are replies to it. Maybe that could be solved by letting twts have more than one (subject) prefix.
> But the great thing about the current system is that nobody can spoof message IDs.
I don't think twtxt hashes are long enough to prevent spoofing.
> I don’t know what happened behind the scenes that killed off twtxt (I have a few guesses, though), but the sad truth is that it’s gone.
> I don’t know what happened behind the scenes that killed off twtxt (I have a few guesses, though), but the sad truth is that it’s gone.
#catsoftwtxt
/https://baldo.cat/media/photos/IMG_1894.jpeg) #catsoftwtxt
#catsoftwtxt
> If you post quality content and you've developed a loyal audience, you should be able to ask your most passionate followers to support you with a premium subscription.
You already can ask your most passionate followers to support you: You can ask for donations.
I regularly donate to people if their content is great and if they actually ask for donations (many just don’t). The platforms for that already exist, I think. 🤔
I’m not interested in the slightest in stuff that has a paywall. “Subscribe for more content!” No, why, go away. Pages that do this immediately feel shady and not trust-worthy. 🤔
> If you post quality content and you've developed a loyal audience, you should be able to ask your most passionate followers to support you with a premium subscription.
You already can ask your most passionate followers to support you: You can ask for donations.
I regularly donate to people if their content is great and if they actually ask for donations (many just don’t). The platforms for that already exist, I think. 🤔
I’m not interested in the slightest in stuff that has a paywall. “Subscribe for more content!” No, why, go away. Pages that do this immediately feel shady and not trust-worthy. 🤔
> If you post quality content and you've developed a loyal audience, you should be able to ask your most passionate followers to support you with a premium subscription.
You already can ask your most passionate followers to support you: You can ask for donations.
I regularly donate to people if their content is great and if they actually ask for donations (many just don’t). The platforms for that already exist, I think. 🤔
I’m not interested in the slightest in stuff that has a paywall. “Subscribe for more content!” No, why, go away. Pages that do this immediately feel shady and not trust-worthy. 🤔
> If you post quality content and you've developed a loyal audience, you should be able to ask your most passionate followers to support you with a premium subscription.
You already can ask your most passionate followers to support you: You can ask for donations.
I regularly donate to people if their content is great and if they actually ask for donations (many just don’t). The platforms for that already exist, I think. 🤔
I’m not interested in the slightest in stuff that has a paywall. “Subscribe for more content!” No, why, go away. Pages that do this immediately feel shady and not trust-worthy. 🤔
> Yes, I'm all for dedicated message IDs. That would be a whole new format then. *But I would be fine with it.*
Honestly, me too. When Yarn originally showed up, I was concerned that it would extend twtxt in dramatically incompatible ways or, worse, change it in a way so that you needed *server software*. 😅 The latter would have ruined it for me. A *major* reason why I still use twtxt/Yarn is that it’s still just a file you put somewhere. If there was the need to *run a daemon*, I’d give up and just use some ActivityPub thingy instead.
What I did not expect, however, was that the original twtxt itself would just … die. There has been no development in the original software anymore and virtually all the original feeds are dead. Some feeds are left, but they’re just used as an alternative to Atom/RSS for some blogs. I don’t know what happened behind the scenes that killed off twtxt (I have a few guesses, though), but the sad truth is that it’s gone.
So, yeah, maybe this gives us the freedom now to *break* with the original twtxt spec (if needed) and come up with a format that *fixes* the issues we’re seeing.
(Oh god. Are we re-inventing Usenet then? Again? 😂)
> Yes, I'm all for dedicated message IDs. That would be a whole new format then. *But I would be fine with it.*
Honestly, me too. When Yarn originally showed up, I was concerned that it would extend twtxt in dramatically incompatible ways or, worse, change it in a way so that you needed *server software*. 😅 The latter would have ruined it for me. A *major* reason why I still use twtxt/Yarn is that it’s still just a file you put somewhere. If there was the need to *run a daemon*, I’d give up and just use some ActivityPub thingy instead.
What I did not expect, however, was that the original twtxt itself would just … die. There has been no development in the original software anymore and virtually all the original feeds are dead. Some feeds are left, but they’re just used as an alternative to Atom/RSS for some blogs. I don’t know what happened behind the scenes that killed off twtxt (I have a few guesses, though), but the sad truth is that it’s gone.
So, yeah, maybe this gives us the freedom now to *break* with the original twtxt spec (if needed) and come up with a format that *fixes* the issues we’re seeing.
(Oh god. Are we re-inventing Usenet then? Again? 😂)
> Yes, I'm all for dedicated message IDs. That would be a whole new format then. *But I would be fine with it.*
Honestly, me too. When Yarn originally showed up, I was concerned that it would extend twtxt in dramatically incompatible ways or, worse, change it in a way so that you needed *server software*. 😅 The latter would have ruined it for me. A *major* reason why I still use twtxt/Yarn is that it’s still just a file you put somewhere. If there was the need to *run a daemon*, I’d give up and just use some ActivityPub thingy instead.
What I did not expect, however, was that the original twtxt itself would just … die. There has been no development in the original software anymore and virtually all the original feeds are dead. Some feeds are left, but they’re just used as an alternative to Atom/RSS for some blogs. I don’t know what happened behind the scenes that killed off twtxt (I have a few guesses, though), but the sad truth is that it’s gone.
So, yeah, maybe this gives us the freedom now to *break* with the original twtxt spec (if needed) and come up with a format that *fixes* the issues we’re seeing.
(Oh god. Are we re-inventing Usenet then? Again? 😂)
> Yes, I'm all for dedicated message IDs. That would be a whole new format then. *But I would be fine with it.*
Honestly, me too. When Yarn originally showed up, I was concerned that it would extend twtxt in dramatically incompatible ways or, worse, change it in a way so that you needed *server software*. 😅 The latter would have ruined it for me. A *major* reason why I still use twtxt/Yarn is that it’s still just a file you put somewhere. If there was the need to *run a daemon*, I’d give up and just use some ActivityPub thingy instead.
What I did not expect, however, was that the original twtxt itself would just … die. There has been no development in the original software anymore and virtually all the original feeds are dead. Some feeds are left, but they’re just used as an alternative to Atom/RSS for some blogs. I don’t know what happened behind the scenes that killed off twtxt (I have a few guesses, though), but the sad truth is that it’s gone.
So, yeah, maybe this gives us the freedom now to *break* with the original twtxt spec (if needed) and come up with a format that *fixes* the issues we’re seeing.
(Oh god. Are we re-inventing Usenet then? Again? 😂)
/https://baldo.cat/media/photos/IMG_1886.jpeg) #catsoftwtxt
#catsoftwtxt
#catsoftwtxt
#catsoftwtxt
#catsoftwtxt
/https://baldo.cat/media/photos/IMG_1890.jpeg) #catsoftwtxt
> How do we identify a feed?
It cannot be the URL, because the author _could_ change where they serve it from. This was as "good" as we could get it, but time and time again this has proven to be problematic for, well, a few folks that change their mind, which frankly should be allowed 😅
> How do we identify a feed?
It cannot be the URL, because the author _could_ change where they serve it from. This was as "good" as we could get it, but time and time again this has proven to be problematic for, well, a few folks that change their mind, which frankly should be allowed 😅
2024-09-05T13:37:40Z (edit:mp6ox4a) Hello world!
2024-09-05T13:37:40Z (edit:mp6ox4a) Hello world!
2024-09-05T13:37:40+00:00 (edit:mp6ox4a) Hello world!
2024-09-05T13:37:40+00:00 (edit:mp6ox4a) Hello world!
# url = metadata field, which is what I _believe_ @cuaxolotl has just done, though I'm not 100% certain, I'm like 98% sure haha 😝
# url = metadata field, which is what I _believe_ @cuaxolotl has just done, though I'm not 100% certain, I'm like 98% sure haha 😝
Yes, I'm all for dedicated message IDs. That would be a whole new format then. But I would be fine with it. The only thing is that all our clients have to be touched. At the moment, I do not worry about spoofing (however, I definitely should).
But the great thing about the current system is that nobody can spoof message IDs. 🤔 When you think about it, message IDs in e-mails only work because (almost) everybody plays fair. Nothing stops me from using the same
Message-ID header in *each and every mail*, that would break e-mail threading all the time.In Yarn, twt hashes are *derived* from twt content and feed metadata. That is pretty elegant and I’d hate see us lose that property.
If we wanted to allow editing twts, we could do something like this:
2024-09-05T13:37:40+00:00 (~mp6ox4a) Hello world!
Here,
mp6ox4a would be a “partial hash”: To get the actual hash of this twt, you’d concatenate the feed’s URL and mp6ox4a and get, say, hlnw5ha. (Pretty similar to the current system.) When people reply to this twt, they would have to do this:2024-09-05T14:57:14+00:00 (~bpt74ka) (#hlnw5ha) Yes, hello!
That second twt has a partial hash of
bpt74ka and is a reply to the full hash hlnw5ha. The author of the “Hello world!” twt could then edit their twt and change it to 2024-09-05T13:37:40+00:00 (~mp6ox4a) Hello friends! or whatever. Threading wouldn’t break.Would this be worth it? It’s certainly not backwards-compatible. 😂
But the great thing about the current system is that nobody can spoof message IDs. 🤔 When you think about it, message IDs in e-mails only work because (almost) everybody plays fair. Nothing stops me from using the same
Message-ID header in *each and every mail*, that would break e-mail threading all the time.In Yarn, twt hashes are *derived* from twt content and feed metadata. That is pretty elegant and I’d hate see us lose that property.
If we wanted to allow editing twts, we could do something like this:
2024-09-05T13:37:40+00:00 (~mp6ox4a) Hello world!
Here,
mp6ox4a would be a “partial hash”: To get the actual hash of this twt, you’d concatenate the feed’s URL and mp6ox4a and get, say, hlnw5ha. (Pretty similar to the current system.) When people reply to this twt, they would have to do this:2024-09-05T14:57:14+00:00 (~bpt74ka) (#hlnw5ha) Yes, hello!
That second twt has a partial hash of
bpt74ka and is a reply to the full hash hlnw5ha. The author of the “Hello world!” twt could then edit their twt and change it to 2024-09-05T13:37:40+00:00 (~mp6ox4a) Hello friends! or whatever. Threading wouldn’t break.Would this be worth it? It’s certainly not backwards-compatible. 😂
But the great thing about the current system is that nobody can spoof message IDs. 🤔 When you think about it, message IDs in e-mails only work because (almost) everybody plays fair. Nothing stops me from using the same
Message-ID header in *each and every mail*, that would break e-mail threading all the time.In Yarn, twt hashes are *derived* from twt content and feed metadata. That is pretty elegant and I’d hate see us lose that property.
If we wanted to allow editing twts, we could do something like this:
2024-09-05T13:37:40+00:00 (~mp6ox4a) Hello world!
Here,
mp6ox4a would be a “partial hash”: To get the actual hash of this twt, you’d concatenate the feed’s URL and mp6ox4a and get, say, hlnw5ha. (Pretty similar to the current system.) When people reply to this twt, they would have to do this:2024-09-05T14:57:14+00:00 (~bpt74ka) (#hlnw5ha) Yes, hello!
That second twt has a partial hash of
bpt74ka and is a reply to the full hash hlnw5ha. The author of the “Hello world!” twt could then edit their twt and change it to 2024-09-05T13:37:40+00:00 (~mp6ox4a) Hello friends! or whatever. Threading wouldn’t break.Would this be worth it? It’s certainly not backwards-compatible. 😂
But the great thing about the current system is that nobody can spoof message IDs. 🤔 When you think about it, message IDs in e-mails only work because (almost) everybody plays fair. Nothing stops me from using the same
Message-ID header in *each and every mail*, that would break e-mail threading all the time.In Yarn, twt hashes are *derived* from twt content and feed metadata. That is pretty elegant and I’d hate see us lose that property.
If we wanted to allow editing twts, we could do something like this:
2024-09-05T13:37:40+00:00 (~mp6ox4a) Hello world!
Here,
mp6ox4a would be a “partial hash”: To get the actual hash of this twt, you’d concatenate the feed’s URL and mp6ox4a and get, say, hlnw5ha. (Pretty similar to the current system.) When people reply to this twt, they would have to do this:2024-09-05T14:57:14+00:00\t(~bpt74ka) (#hlnw5ha) Yes, hello!
That second twt has a partial hash of
bpt74ka and is a reply to the full hash hlnw5ha. The author of the “Hello world!” twt could then edit their twt and change it to 2024-09-05T13:37:40+00:00 (~mp6ox4a) Hello friends! or whatever. Threading wouldn’t break.Would this be worth it? It’s certainly not backwards-compatible. 😂
url metdata key of your feed?
# url = https://sunshinegardens.org/~xj9/twtxt/tw.txt
Was this at one point
# url = https://sunshinegardens.org/users/xj9/twtxt/tw.txt?
url metdata key of your feed?
# url = https://sunshinegardens.org/~xj9/twtxt/tw.txt
Was this at one point
# url = https://sunshinegardens.org/users/xj9/twtxt/tw.txt?
Which links to https://github.com/musingstudio/go-subclub> A Go (golang) library for interacting with the sub.club API.
So I got curious and had a peek 👀
> Let's fund the Fediverse
>> Posting or hosting on the open social networks no longer means you have to do it for free. Developer Preview now available.
And further down:
> Monetize your feeds
>> If you post quality content and you've developed a loyal audience, you should be able to ask your most passionate followers to support you with a premium subscription.
>>
>> That's a promise not available on the Fediverse ...until now.
Hmmm 🤔
Which links to https://github.com/musingstudio/go-subclub> A Go (golang) library for interacting with the sub.club API.
So I got curious and had a peek 👀
> Let's fund the Fediverse
>> Posting or hosting on the open social networks no longer means you have to do it for free. Developer Preview now available.
And further down:
> Monetize your feeds
>> If you post quality content and you've developed a loyal audience, you should be able to ask your most passionate followers to support you with a premium subscription.
>>
>> That's a promise not available on the Fediverse ...until now.
Hmmm 🤔