"Every ActivityPub server should accept, save, and forward all objects and activities with types in the Activity Vocabulary."
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to Evan Prodromou on last edited by
@evan whatever the mechanism i do think isActivity() needs to be specified within mainline AP. i know we have a primer page but having it in-spec would be really useful too.
something similar for allowing Actor to be declared on objects with ldp:inbox and as:outbox could also be useful if we *really* wanna avoid duck-typing. although i am not as opposed to duck-typing as you are…
the definition of as:Actor would specifically be “my ldp:inbox dereferences to a Collection of Activity or subtype”
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to infinite love ⴳ on last edited by
@evan in other words if something is an Actor then it is expected that you can send Activity notifications to it as opposed to generic LDN, and crucially, ***it will handle those activities with side-effects defined in activitypub***
it therefore may also make sense to define Actor and isActor() at the spec level
-
@evan what about content that is blatantly illegal?
-
@skryking interesting question! I had not read the poll that way. I was thinking in particular of the many types of activities like `Listen` or `Travel` that aren't well supported by some servers.
-
Evan Prodromoureplied to Evan Prodromou on last edited by
@skryking I updated the poll to make it clearer.
-
@skryking @evan I think they mean: "your server doesn't understand a @bivouacwiki poll or a Lemmy downvote, still forward it?"
a mastodon post is a text box, or a pixelfed image is just an image slot. what you put in it could be legal or illegal.
-
If that is the case, how can instances differentiate?
I became a member of a particular instance BECAUSE they do not accept, save, and forward everything.
The policies of my instance form the guardrail that protects my mailbox.
@evan
#Safety #Personalisation #Differentiate #Instance #Fediverse -
That's pretty condescending
One can understand the statement, and not support it
Which includes not supporting a poll that, tacitly, supports the current background behind the statement
-
@FinchHaven I agree, one can understand the statement and not support it.
If someone doesn't understand the statement, that's OK. It's a very specific issue for a very small group of developers and architects working on the ActivityPub network. People shouldn't feel bad if they don't understand.
Also, I don't think you're correct in your assumptions about my biases.
-
Evan Prodromoureplied to Evan Prodromou on last edited by
@FinchHaven I think most people on the Fediverse could understand the issue if it was explained clearly, but I think that would reveal more of my thoughts about the issue than would be fair for a poll. Also, I just finished writing a book about ActivityPub, so I want to take a weekend off from explaining the protocol!
-
@paulschoe So, you joined an instance because they don't allow the `Travel` activity?
-
eeeee, the poll is a Question object. Posting a poll is thus Create{Question}. In general, the way polls work in ActivityPub is mildly cursed. You vote by posting a Note with one of the options in the text in reply to the Question.
-
-
@evan accidentally voted strongly disagree, meant to say somewhat agree.
I think the Point of a Standard protocol is to make things compatible, which means they need to handle all objects/activitiesBut I also think some Services don't want to have features for all of them. EG a Game I built doesn't care about questions in general or even posts (from specific instances). https://github.com/maybeanerd/selfhosted-api-trader-game
In this case I'd argue it's "handled", even though it's ignored in reality -
Evan Prodromoureplied to Evan Prodromou on last edited by
I'm strongly agree. I think AP servers should support the full Vocabulary. Apps that only use a subset - like games or photo editors or whatever - should be ActivityPub API clients.
