Join the discussion on the Fediverse with #FediLibrary.
Published on 10 February 2018
Submitted on 8 August 2020
What is ActivityPub and why?
In my free time, I develop a free software social network server called Pleroma (code). It is compatible with GNU Social, Mastodon, Friendica, and any other server that implements the OStatus protocol. Recently, there has been some buzz about a new protocol for federated social networking: ActivityPub. This protocol is now a W3C Recommendation, which means that it’s a kind of ‘standard’, if you care about that sort of thing. Here’s my opinion on it, and how it came to be where it is now.
Before AP, there were a few federation protocols in use already. The two largest ones are probably OStatus, the system that GNU Social invented, and the Diaspora protocol. These are actually rather similar and even partially interoperable. Both essentially revolve around exchanging activity data (a post, a like, a comment) between servers. Said simply, OStatus works well for Twitter style open communication, Diaspora works best for group-based communications (friends, acquaintances, lovers…).
These protocols worked as expected, overall. Still, some parts of them made people look for new solutions. Especially OStatus was (and is) severely underdocumented. There is no document that you can read to implement a compatible server. Even if you read the specs of all the standards it is made up from, you’ll still not know how to write a compatible server. What you have to do is to “just do what GNU Social expects”, essentially copying whatever it does while checking the existing documentation. This is an uncomfortable process, but it’s not impossible. At least two completely independent implementations sprang up in the course of a year (Mastodon and Pleroma), in addition to the existing implementations in Gnu Social, Friendica and Hubzilla.
After the the initial influx of users, Mastodon decided to implement “private” posts, that is, posts that only reach a certain set of recipients. It didn’t implement recipient groups (like in Diaspora), but three settings: Public, Friends, and “Direct Message”, that is, just a few specific recipients. In addition, posts can be listed or unlisted, which influences whether they appear in the public timelines or not. This was implemented on top of OStatus by adding new fields to the activity XML.
This was problematic, because every OStatus server EXCEPT Mastodon would not understand these new fields and simply ignore them. This led to accidental private data leaks and a lot of bad blood between Mastodon and GNU Social.
Here’s an example of what could happen.
This scenario happened a lot, and there was a lot of pain and drama because of it. In response to these problems, Mastodon started to implement ActivityPub and stopped federating any non-public content over OStatus. This solved the problem, as messages with privacy settings now never reached servers that didn’t understand them. (A malicious server could still leak them, though). This also gave the new ActivityPub standard the largest user base of all federated social networking standards.
Could anything have been done to prevent these problems in the first place?
I think so. There’s a really simple extension to OStatus that would have let to the same situation that we have now, without rewriting all our protocol stacks. Here’s how:
OStatus has two modes of activity transfer / federation.
So why are there two methods and not just one? OStatus is a mix of existing standards. Activities are available via Atom feeds (like RSS) and WebSub is a method of pushing out RSS feeds. The idea was that you would not have to write and host your WebSub server, someone else could do it for you. Mastodon tried this at first, using superfeedr as its WebSub server. As it turns out, other servers “optimize” the xml you push around, breaking federation all around. Because of this, Mastodon started including a WebSub server in Mastodon itself. In fact, all OStatus servers do, so the WebSub mechanism is kind of redundant.
Now, for Salmons, every user has their own Salmon endpoint on which they can receive signed messages. There is a discovery mechanism (webfinger) for those endpoints. A simple way to restrict ‘private’ activities to servers that support them would have been to just add a second Salmon endpoint for them. This would have involved a very small change to the webfinger and web routing code, but nothing beyond that. Servers with privacy extensions would have federated private messages over this additional endpoint, and public messages would have continued to federate over the old WebSub and Salmon mechanisms.
So, why didn’t Mastodon implement this system? I don’t really know. It was suggested several times, but maybe group dynamics prevented it. Either way, we now have a new standard in ActivityPub that implements the same functionality that we had before, but everybody has to rewrite their protocol stacks from XML to JSON (and use a slightly different public key system).
And it isn’t enough to just read the ActivityPub spec. It doesn’t specify some things that are essential to federation, including message signing, user discovery and even the message content (see this article for more information about that).
You will have to implement whatever Mastodon expects to be compatible. We are now back at the situation we had with GNU Social and OStatus, just that XML has turned into JSON and GS has become Mastodon.
Where does that leave us? At least for Pleroma, it’s not too hard. Pleroma has been internally an ActivityPub system from the start, so we just need to add the federation parts for the outside. For some other systems, it seems like they might sooner or later drop off the map. I don’t really see anyone implementing AP for GNU Social, for example.
Overall this episode has been rather frustrating, generating a lot of work for very little gain. But that’s what we have to live with.