{"p":"","h":{"iv":"ROXSYW+cfvEbFHu5","at":"ocxplSQjdRC3tXEtB/9/wg=="}}

@simon @amyhoy @natematias @dansinker @jessamyn @danhon @ryanrandall speaking as, I think, the only highly experienced ActivityPub dev on this thread, Simon is right, this kind of permission granting is anywhere from extremely hard to impossible in the ActivityPub model unless you just want to set a flag that says "please respect this flag and don't allow your users to QT".

But crucially: that may be enough! It's how "unlisted" posts work.

3
Share
Share on Mastodon
Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Share on Linkedin
Amy Hoy

@natematias @danhon @ryanrandall @simon @jessamyn @dansinker @darius right… the other privacy people expect doesn’t exist here in reality. which is still probably enough to discourage a lot of abuse. and if instances abuse it, they can be defederated

0
2y
palesz

@darius @simon @amyhoy @natematias @dansinker @jessamyn @danhon @ryanrandall Playing devil's advocate here. Can't I just boost / QT your content out of the fediverse anyways, given all I need is a URL, since everything is public anyways? You won't get notified that someone posted you on 4chan / defederated instance, but you might still get the influx of harassment from there. What would the consent on QT actually solve in practice? You obviously can't stop linking via URL.

1
2y
blaine

@darius @simon @amyhoy @natematias @dansinker @jessamyn @danhon @ryanrandall as a bonus feature in conjunction with the above, policies (i.e., not code) that treat unwelcome/bullying QTs as harrassment and a blockable offense might also go a long way if adopted by a sufficiently large number of instances.

0
2y
Replies