Untitled attachment

Notices where this attachment appears

1. Embed this notice
   silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Friday, 07-Aug-2026 04:55:03 JST silverpill

   I think it's fine to use a different type. What I wanted to point out is that context property is for grouping related objects, and that there is another property that does exactly you want - relationship.

   we're modeling a one-way relationship, not two way.

   In a two-way relationship, there is an expectation that another Relationship object exists representing a reverse claim.

   Is there another way around this issue that DOESN'T require Object Integrity Proofs?

   I am not sure if integrity proofs really solve this problem... It's hard to tell without knowing who signs what (I didn't find that information in the FEP).

2. Embed this notice
   Partisan Night Slut :pns: (pns@noauthority.social)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Mar-2026 11:40:49 JST Partisan Night Slut :pns:

   Ostensibly, a woman buys her son a DSLR camera. The delivery driver chucks it on her porch. She claims the thing was broken in the box. The CSR handling her complaint talks over her and denies her replacement claim.

   Is this real? No one knows anymore.

3. Embed this notice
   Tokyo Outsider (337ppm) (tokyo_0@mas.to)'s status on Thursday, 21-Aug-2025 05:58:16 JST Tokyo Outsider (337ppm)

   in reply to

   @josephcox 404media does some great work, and you're absolutely right that what's happening with AI and search is a crisis for the industry that is causing great harm.

   That said:

   1. The explainer seems to conflate asking for e-mails to halt scraping (to verify that the reader is human) with asking for e-mails to send content there directly. These are not the same.

   2. Your post seems to accuse Mastodon users of wrongdoing without anything to support the claim.

   Is there something I'm missing?