I'm so tired of reading takes on moderation that begin and end with "decide what content I see". That's not even half the question.
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
> it's even more baffling that no major implementation has actually taken advantage of that
i blame sharedInbox. its mere existence seems to constrain people's imaginations on what is possible... they don't realize it was designed only for Public activities. using it for anything else means that you are giving control to the remote server to decide who can see it (which is a Very Bad Idea). what we need is a mechanism that lets you explicitly declare which inboxes to deliver
-
Jenniferplusplusreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
This is all to say nothing of how we're so unable to establish and hold boundaries with each other. That's closely related, but I think very worthy of it's own thread.
But that's probably a topic for another day.
7/7
-
@jenniferplusplus This is such a great thread. I've had this feeling myself, but have never been able to put it into words the way you did. Thank you!
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
@jenniferplusplus @dahukanna @helge this is exactly how i view `context` and it's why i wrote https://w3id.org/fep/7888 -- to enable exactly this kind of representation of a "conversation". A owns the collection, A gets to Add posts into it. B, C, D can fetch by id, but M who is blocked will fail whatever access control mechanism you're using.
-
Jenniferplusplusreplied to infinite love ⴳ last edited by
@trwnh I actually don't hate Sharedinbox the way other people do. You were always going to depend on the way the recipient server distributes your messages. The SharedInbox is just honest about that, which allows the protocol to make a meaningful and critical performance optimization.
My position on that is generally that we have to trust our peers to act in good faith, and we shouldn't deal at all with peers we can't trust in that way.
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
@jenniferplusplus well, the remote server has no idea what any given collection contains. that's the real issue.
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to infinite love ⴳ last edited by
@jenniferplusplus like, it should be possible to silently remove a follower without notifying any remote servers and without leaving the remote server in a state where it will blindly continue to deliver your activities to the actor you remove silently.
-
Jenniferplusplusreplied to infinite love ⴳ last edited by
@trwnh I agree that the near impossibility of knowing the contents of a collection is the source of the problem. But saying you should be able to update the collection, not inform anyone, and have them act in accordance with the update seems like magical thinking.
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
@jenniferplusplus if there were a multibox endpoint where i could explicitly say "deliver this activity to inboxes B,C,D only", then the remote server doesn't have to know the contents of the collection. It could at most guess what the local subset is, sure.
-
Jenniferplusplusreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
@trwnh I would instead suggest that we need a way to distinguish between inboxes that are self administered vs administered by a third party. For a lot of reasons. Sending a block or flag or removing a follower is a different dynamic depending on whether it's going straight to the subject's inbox, or will be processed by some 3rd on their behalf. You can trust 2nd parties not to be indifferent, but 3rd parties usually are.
-
Jenniferplusplusreplied to Paul Cantrell last edited by [email protected]
@inthehands @jalcine It may not surprise you to know that I was extremely into the notion of circles at the time. But I didn't know how to social media back then. And I wasn't very good at being a person, either. (those facts are related.) So it never came to anything.
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
@jenniferplusplus i'm toying with the following approaches re: this
a) declare an `endpoints.abuseReports` or similar for the express purpose of server-wide abuse communications or other activities that aren't meant to be seen by the actor you are reporting/blocking/etc
b) formalize servers as actors with their own inboxes and use these inboxes for all manner of "system messages". this would in effect work like xmpp, except xmpp goes even further and sends *all* messages to a server directly.
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to infinite love ⴳ last edited by
@jenniferplusplus in any case it would probably be a good idea to take a hard look at the exact nature of the relationship between any given actor and their server. there ought to be a way to signal that an actor is being "managed" by some server, where the server is doing more than simply hosting their inbox and outbox and doing deliveries.
-
Paul Cantrellreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
@jenniferplusplus @jalcine
Still working at both (the social media and the being a person). Mostly the second. It’s…a whole thing! -
Jenniferplusplusreplied to infinite love ⴳ last edited by
@trwnh I've recently been thinking about it in terms of a data custodian. Because you're right, it's more involved than merely the hosting details of the inbox. The custodian would be the party that actually processes the messages.
I'd like to do the same for sent messages, actually. I want to know both who the actor is, and the sender. This would answer a lot of difficult questions that come up when you start working through what happens if you have user supplied signing keys.
-
yeah really, great thread @[email protected]!
@[email protected] -
Dawn Ahukannareplied to infinite love ⴳ last edited by
@trwnh @jenniferplusplus @helge
Thanks for sharing, will take closer look later.
Initial impressions after reading:1. I’d need to absorb & model Information Architecture {IA) for entire ActivityStream specification to put the context placeholder in context of base-class/object/implementation for actor, collection, etc.- https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/information-architecture
2. Question: Is the context collection a bag abstract data type (https://algs4.cs.princeton.edu/13stacks/) or a graph with nodes & edges (https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/6-042j-mathematics-for-computer-science-fall-2010/f471f7b7034fabe8bbba5507df7d307f_MIT6_042JF10_chap05.pdf)?
-
fromjason.xyz ❤️ 💻replied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
@jenniferplusplus This reminds me of Google+ and its Circles feature. Not sad that a Google-lead social product died, but they were onto something.
-
Jenniferplusplusreplied to fromjason.xyz ❤️ 💻 last edited by
@fromjason that is exactly the right comparison
-
Matthew Lyonreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
@jenniferplusplus One of the things I remember telling my partner (whose social media is basically Reddit and TikTok) about old Twitter was that it went from (when I joined in 2006) feeling like a party line for text messages to feeling like I had to conmunicate in delicately crafted soundbites
What changed? The potential reach of the broadcast