- [email protected] follows(1) [email protected] (S2S)

naturzukunft

- [email protected] follows(1) [email protected] (S2S)
- [email protected] accept follows(1) (C2S & S2S)

How does [email protected] tell its server example.org (C2S) that it wants to delete [email protected] from its followers? which activity is this?
#activitypub #activitypubdev #rdf-pub

marius

@naturzukunft as far as I remember, collection management is done with Add/Remove activities.

marius

This post is deleted!

marius

@naturzukunft I'm not sure, but applications could also send a Reject to the follow request from [email protected].

I'm not sure which is better, they have different semantics in my mind: Remove, is a local operation that nobody needs to be informed about, Reject is a courtesy operation that would let max know that he's been removed.

Mike P

@naturzukunft I implemented Undo/Accept/Follow for this.

I don't know how widely supported it is.

marius

@FenTiger perfect, I forgot about the most obvious one. Thank you. (I think this is the flow Mastodon uses too, right?)

@naturzukunft

naturzukunft

@FenTiger if the actor initially "reject" the follow, do you use also "undo" (C2S) ?

Mike P

@naturzukunft I haven't implemented Reject/Follow, but if I did, I wouldn't expect there to be anything to Undo, because the follow relationship wouldn't have been created in the first place.

naturzukunft

@FenTiger @mariusor it's kind of scary that I already have so many problems / questions with these simple uc's

Mike P

@naturzukunft @mariusor 100% agreed. In an ideal world, these things would be specified in detail somewhere, but instead we all get to do our own thing and then wonder why interop is so patchy...

naturzukunft

@FenTiger yes, i agree. in my opinion, a reject/follow C2s & S2S should be sent if the receiving actor wants to reject the follower.

naturzukunft

i'll go with remove follower C2S and ignore S2S, since the follow activity does not exist in mastodon anyway.

ActivityPub

The ActivityPub protocol is a decentralized social networking protocol based upon the [ActivityStreams] 2.0 data format. It provides a client to server API for creating, updating and deleting content, as well as a federated server to server API for delivering notifications and content.

(www.w3.org)

marius

@naturzukunft I wouldn't think like that about the situation. Think about who in the wider network requires information about what you are about to do in order for the effect to be what you desire.

In this specific case the "side-effect" of removing a user from your follower list is limited to your own instance, the wider network doesn't care about it. Not even the instance of the other user.

This is because the desired effect is that when you post a new thing, the unwanted user doesn't receive it any more. That's all in my opinion.

@FenTiger

Mike P

@mariusor @naturzukunft You might want to remove yourself from their following collection, too, to keep the two in sync.

naturzukunft

@FenTiger @mariusor
yes, or you don't want the follower to know that you have removed him

Mike P

@naturzukunft @mariusor Well, yes, both are possible, and I can't immediately think of an obvious way to distinguish the two on the C2S side.

naturzukunft

@mariusor @FenTiger
fyi:
https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/471