Twice in the past fews days, I’ve gotten a reply from a Mastodon user complaining that I should have put the direct link to an article.
- On Lemmy I posted the direct link to the article as usual
- On their Mastodon feed, I appear as a Mastodon user that posted a link to a Lemmy thread
It seems that threadiverse posts are being seen by more mastodon users now, which is great, but maybe the formatting could use some improvements?
Example 1:
- My post: https://lemmy.ca/comment/19153240
- How they see it: https://sfba.social/@[email protected]/115267196743748430
Example 2:
- My post: https://lemmy.ca/comment/19202083
- How they see it: https://mas.to/@[email protected]/115283224174559468
I know Mastodon got “quote posts” recently, is that related to this change?
Is Mastodon also getting a “group” view? That might be the best solution to the problem
Do note that Mastodon forces a redirect to the original instance for non-local posts, here’s a direct link to the comment: https://sfba.social/@karlauerbach/115267230182946226
There’s actually some related (yet-to-be-merged) changes to this on the Mastodon side, add support for links in Attachments (this is how Lemmy and the like federate links).
I don’t think anything’s changed, just two users finding a post in a hashtag (Lemmy adds the community name as a hastag for posts). I’ve seen some masto users complain about this in the past on the #lemmy tag.
Thanks. Yes, this is just how Mastodon renders content from Lemmy and Piefed at the moment.
Mastodon sees something that is not a
Note
, and says “I will treat it using a fallback mechanism. If it has a title, it is added to the top, I will add the URL back to the site at the bottom. If it has asummary
, I will use that as the content”Note that it does not use
content
, that’s why there’s no actual content. This is why the link preview also links back to Lemmy, not to the article itself.[email protected] and [email protected] can add this to their software, respectively, by populating
summary
. It can just be a copy ofcontent
, or it can be a summarization… or it could be the link to the article… anything goes really.But isn’t that how Mastodon handles content warnings? Baffling that they’d do it like that frankly given that it prevents long-form content (when masto actually starts supporting that) from being CW’d.
Not necessarily, no. Content warnings were implemented in Mastodon specifically as
summary
plussensitive
=true
. Perhaps not originally, but that is enforced now (all CW’d posts from Mastodon are marked sensitive). Might be Mastodon will CW notes that don’t havesensitive
, out of caution, but this doesn’t apply to non-Notes.So a summary included in a non-Note is not CW’d by Mastodon currently.
I know, I was just saying that it prevents a non-Note from being CW’d, as the
summery
is used as the post’s content.I suppose, although in that scenario theoretically one could add
as:sensitive
to mark the status as CW’d? I don’t think CW logic is even run for non-Notes at the moment, though I could be mistaken.Masto interprets a
Note
set asas:sensitive
without asummary
to mean ‘blur any media attached, but don’t collapse the text content’. I believe the same is true for non-Notes, but obviously without thesummary
= CW logic.