Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cactus Comments: Federated web comments based on Matrix protocol

cactus.chat

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 57 posts

Re: Cactus Comments: Federated web comments based on Matrix protocol

#31

Post by carlbordum »

southerntofu wrote: post #26

Hello, i just tested it and it's really cool! Do you have any idea about ActivityPub / XMPP PubSub gateways for interoperability? From a remote look, it appears mxtoot is a bot not a proper AP gateway, and bifrost doesn't support PubSub XEP which is used for microblogging/commenting. Supporting these protocols directly would also be an option, but i don't know an ActivityPub server that supports guest accounts (but X…

Hi, I am one of the authors of Cactus Comments.

Making Cactus Comments work without javascript would require a backend server. Right now, the frontend is actually just a special-purpose Matrix client that interacts directly with Matrix homeservers.

Re: Cactus Comments: Federated web comments based on Matrix protocol

#32

Post by claudiawerner »

ta8645 wrote: post #14
a1371 wrote: post #6

This is great! Any option to filter spam/hate speech automatically and not on the front-end?

I personally find "hate speech" nomenclature quite tedious, but dealing with undesired content is handled via the usual Matrix methods[1]... since that is what underlies Cactus. You may have to self host though, i'm not sure if Cactus themselves give access to these features if you rely on them for hosting. [1] https://matrix.org/docs/guides/moderation

>I personally find "hate speech" nomenclature quite tedious,

Why? I think it's quite a useful term that's worthy of discussion from philosophical and legal perspectives. It pretty quickly identifies a range of related behaviors. But I am interested if you have less 'tedious' terms that describe the same thing.

Re: Cactus Comments: Federated web comments based on Matrix protocol

#33

Post by lrem »

ta8645 wrote: post #14
a1371 wrote: post #6

This is great! Any option to filter spam/hate speech automatically and not on the front-end?

I personally find "hate speech" nomenclature quite tedious, but dealing with undesired content is handled via the usual Matrix methods[1]... since that is what underlies Cactus. You may have to self host though, i'm not sure if Cactus themselves give access to these features if you rely on them for hosting. [1] https://matrix.org/docs/guides/moderation

Scanning through the doc, I don't see mention of setting a room to "each message needs approval". Have I missed it?

Re: Cactus Comments: Federated web comments based on Matrix protocol

#34

Post by southerntofu »

carlbordum wrote: post #31
southerntofu wrote: post #26

Hello, i just tested it and it's really cool! Do you have any idea about ActivityPub / XMPP PubSub gateways for interoperability? From a remote look, it appears mxtoot is a bot not a proper AP gateway, and bifrost doesn't support PubSub XEP which is used for microblogging/commenting. Supporting these protocols directly would also be an option, but i don't know an ActivityPub server that supports guest accounts (but X…

Hi, I am one of the authors of Cactus Comments. Making Cactus Comments work without javascript would require a backend server. Right now, the frontend is actually just a special-purpose Matrix client that interacts directly with Matrix homeservers.

Hello, thanks for taking the time to reply. Isn't the matrix.org homeserver already a backend HTTP server? I'm unfamiliar with the matrix protocol, but isn't there a way to POST to homeserver directly so that it can authenticate and confirm with the user they intend to post this message?

Re: Cactus Comments: Federated web comments based on Matrix protocol

#37

Post by Proven »

paraknight wrote: post #20
ta8645 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally find "hate speech" nomenclature quite tedious, but dealing with undesired content is handled via the usual Matrix methods[1]... since that is what underlies Cactus. You may have to self host though, i'm not sure if Cactus themselves give access to these features if you rely on them for hosting. [1] https://matrix.org/docs/guides/moderation

Why tedious? It's a short, accurate, semantically unambiguous description of a non-partisan concept; speech expressing hate. It's the global minimum in tediousness for expressing that and much narrower and more objective than "undesired content".

Because it implies that current moderation features linked in his reply aren't enough and that "hate" speech should be somehow dealt with differently than other unwanted content.

Re: Cactus Comments: Federated web comments based on Matrix protocol

#38

Post by outime »

nanna wrote: post #19
ta8645 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally find "hate speech" nomenclature quite tedious, but dealing with undesired content is handled via the usual Matrix methods[1]... since that is what underlies Cactus. You may have to self host though, i'm not sure if Cactus themselves give access to these features if you rely on them for hosting. [1] https://matrix.org/docs/guides/moderation

> I personally find "hate speech" nomenclature quite tedious I first encountered 'hate speech' as a wide eyed teenager in the 1990s on a gaming IRC room that I hung out in. Somehow my ethnic background came out, and it was bizarre: the entire room either turned against me with racist hate speech, adding that they knew where I lived based on my ip (didn't think this was possible, but then didn't know anyone to ask if…

I didn’t downvote and I’m very sorry you had/have to go through that. That being said, how I see it is that OP may be referring to the fact that the “hate speech” label is being overused similarly to “fascism” and other similar strong words.
Post reply on HN