#social 2019-09-01

2019-09-01 UTC
# 02:46 
@eniehack ↩️ @hi_karuh これは私がapの規格書の翻訳をしているやつで(WIP)、
https://twitter.com/eniehack/status/1138461548593242115?s=19
他のかたも翻訳したりする。
https://argrath.github.io/activitypub/
もとの規格書はこれ
https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/ (twitter.com/_/status/1167991994041257986)
# 02:48 
aaronpk so, question
# 02:48 
aaronpk about activitypub
# 02:48 
aaronpk it looks like there is some inconsistent behavior, and I don't know what the intent is
# 02:49 
aaronpk if A makes a post, and B reposts it (boosts, shares, whatev), and C replies to the original post from A, then some servers also deliver that post to B
# 02:49 
aaronpk is that intentional?
nightpool[m] joined the channel
# 02:57 
nightpool[m] aaronpk: see the Inbox Forwarding rules
# 02:57 
aaronpk this? https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/#inbox-forwarding
# 02:58 
nightpool[m] yes
# 02:58 
nightpool[m] and also the second header here now that I think about it: https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/issues/5631#issuecomment-343039649
# 02:59 
aaronpk that doesn't say anything about someone who reposts something
# 03:03 
nightpool[m] ohhh
# 03:03 
nightpool[m] right
# 03:03 
nightpool[m] yeah then as I said, it should only deliver wrt the explicit targeting
# 03:04 
aaronpk it appears some clients also include the username of the person who boosted the post in the post text
# 03:05 
aaronpk example: https://mastodon.social/@moritzheiber/102700805191747811
# 03:05 
aaronpk @moritz replied to @numen, but the reply text starts with "@numen @annika" because @annika boosted it
# 03:06 
nightpool[m] definitely a choice clients can make
# 03:06 
nightpool[m] in mastodon if the clients include it, they would be addressed and that's why it's getting delivered
# 03:07 
aaronpk huh that seems strange that it's a client decision. seems like it should be a server decision
# 03:08 
nightpool[m] the server should decide what accounts the client is allowed to @-mention?
# 03:09 
aaronpk no, the server should decide whether the @-mention is automatically added to the post text or not
# 03:10 
aaronpk although actually probably yes, because the server has more information about the account than the client does
# 03:11 
aaronpk like if i've blocked someone, I shouldn't ever have a client be able to @-mention that blocked account in a post, my server should stop that from happening
# 03:11 
nightpool[m] the latter thing is still definitely true so I'm confused
# 03:12 
aaronpk anyway that's all tangential. the actual problem is that this behavior of @-mentioning the person who boosted a post seems to be inconsistent between clients, which seems wrong
_xmpp-social and xmpp-social joined the channel
# 06:54 
trwnh aaronpk: it's a client choice because it's a user choice. that doesn't preclude server-side validation though.
# 06:55 
trwnh from a user standpoint it doesn't really make sense because it implies you are replying to a post that was boosted by someone blocked
# 06:56 
trwnh but then again there's also the question of what a block means. perhaps you *can* reply to someone you blocked. they just shouldn't be able to reply to you.
# 06:58 
trwnh fwiw the two things i can point to are a) Toot! has an option you can enable for mentioning the user who boosted something, and b) you could also add the mention yourself manually if you think the booster should also see it.
ilmu and lain_soykaf joined the channel