Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Tuesday, 18-Feb-2025 08:03:29 JST silverpill

   @julian If these limitations don't prevent us from implementing any features, why they should be addressed?

   The entire network is built around the idea that only actors can have inboxes and outboxes. I don't see what problem we solve by challenging this, but I can easily see how that makes things worse.

   • Embed this notice
     infinite love ⴳ (trwnh@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 18-Feb-2025 18:10:13 JST infinite love ⴳ

     in reply to

     @silverpill @julian how is "the entire network built around the idea"? why do you have this idea of an actor that necessarily maps to a user?

     from https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/#actors we see that:

     > ActivityPub does not dictate a specific relationship between "users" and Actors

     so why introduce the concept of "observers" and then prevent users from knowing what they are following? Why the avoidance of calling a conversation a Conversation, and why the artificial limitation of not being able to follow one?

   • Embed this notice
     silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Tuesday, 18-Feb-2025 18:10:13 JST silverpill

     in reply to

     • infinite love ⴳ

     @trwnh I didn't say that actors always map to "users", though mapping actors to "accounts" is very common and is a good UI design practice. In my proposal Application actor is recommended, which is not a "user".

     The idea of adding inboxes to collections, or that collections could be followed is not supported by the ActivityPub specification. I believe it is also wrong for other reasons, and I already said enough about that in FEP-2277 and in various discussions.

     @julian