GNU social JP
  • FAQ
  • Login
GNU social JPは日本のGNU socialサーバーです。
Usage/ToS/admin/test/Pleroma FE
  • Public

    • Public
    • Network
    • Groups
    • Featured
    • Popular
    • People

Conversation

Notices

  1. Embed this notice
    silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Wednesday, 05-Feb-2025 02:54:01 JST silverpill silverpill
    • tesaguri 🦀🦝

    @helge

    >It can't be the patchwork approach promoted by Mastodon, see fep-5feb

    A more advanced mechanism was proposed in FEP-268d, which addresses FEP-5feb shortcomings.

    cc @tesaguri

    In conversation about 3 months ago from mitra.social permalink

    Attachments


    • Embed this notice
      silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Wednesday, 05-Feb-2025 03:22:57 JST silverpill silverpill
      in reply to
      • marius

      @mariusor Search consent seems to be different enough to justify a new property. But when dealing with crawling we may indeed use standard properties. For example, there is FEP-7502: Limiting visibility to authenticated actors, where a new magic collection was proposed, similar to Public. I can imagine using magic collections for various purposes: for indicating unlisted (quiet public) posts, or for indicating public-but-not-for-crawlers posts.

      In conversation about 3 months ago permalink
    • Embed this notice
      marius (mariusor@metalhead.club)'s status on Wednesday, 05-Feb-2025 03:22:58 JST marius marius
      in reply to

      @silverpill is there some glaring thing I'm missing? I fail to believe that nobody really thought of this simplest way to handle ACLs.

      In conversation about 3 months ago permalink
    • Embed this notice
      marius (mariusor@metalhead.club)'s status on Wednesday, 05-Feb-2025 03:23:00 JST marius marius
      in reply to

      @silverpill does anyone justify in their FEPs _why_ there is a need for additional properties when ActivityPub provides multiple ones in the form of the To, Bto, CC, BCC recipients, and of the Audience one?

      These form a perfect basis for access control lists and I haven't seen anything that convinced me that it's not enough combined with OAuth2 tokens for C2S and HTTP-Signatures for S2S.

      In conversation about 3 months ago permalink
    • Embed this notice
      silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Wednesday, 05-Feb-2025 06:40:29 JST silverpill silverpill
      in reply to
      • marius

      @mariusor Yeah, I also don't like un-enforceable permissions, and I am not offering such solutions to users of my software. Just brought those FEPs up because other people on fedi were discussing crawlers today.

      In conversation about 3 months ago permalink
    • Embed this notice
      marius (mariusor@metalhead.club)'s status on Wednesday, 05-Feb-2025 06:40:31 JST marius marius
      in reply to

      @silverpill so I'm not missing anything, just people wanting to overcomplicate things. Sigh.

      Consent is not a thing that should be encouraged through non server-side enfored mechanisms because (as we can see plenty today) bad faith actors care not about such things.

      Therefore a flag on an actor/object is useless because it requires that crawlers obey it, and again, they can not be trusted to do that.

      In my opinion offering this as a solution to end-users is just snake oil.

      In conversation about 3 months ago permalink

Feeds

  • Activity Streams
  • RSS 2.0
  • Atom
  • Help
  • About
  • FAQ
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • Source
  • Version
  • Contact

GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.