I wanted to be able to search and browse the #ActivityPub Fediverse Enhancement Proposals (FEPs) so I converted them to an Obsidian vault. As a nice side-benefit, I can now view the graph of FEP dependencies and their color-coded status (green=FINAL, yellow=DRAFT, red=WITHDRAWN).
Suppose someone blocks me. The feeling is mutual, so I want to block them too.
Am I able to block them after they've blocked me?
This is what I call mutual blocking.
Is mutual blocking in the fediverse possible at all?
Is mutual blocking possible on Mastodon?
I don't see these two questions as equal. It could be possible to mutually block at the level of ActivityPub, but also for Mastodon to not have an interface that allows us doing it.
I know on some platform this is not possible. Once you block someone, you vanish out of existence, and they cannot also block you.
However, I'm thinking that it is possible to mutually block one another in the fediverse and Mastodon.
I've searched the web and I haven't found a discussion of this.
As far as I know, there's no direct way to do this in vanilla Mastodon as the menu which includes the block option becomes inaccessible when they block you.
It might be possible on ActivityPub, but not on vanilla Mastodon.
Spent some time on my #ActivityPub project today getting #PSQL set up. There's a lot of random setup that goes into PSQL and it isn't especially well documented (or rather, it is so well documented there is simply too much of it).
Whether I stick with it is a separate question. Comparing it to the other options and including the learning curve it is head and shoulders the best pick for me for right now, however, at least for a production-level database.
@Arcaik@renchap@thisismissem@hrefna Uniqueness constraints are not asserted across partitions so it requires a bit more awareness at the application layer. Our code also has to work for all installs and not just ones with DevOps engineers.
@Gargron@renchap@thisismissem@hrefna What I'm saying is that one could make Mastodon “partitioning ready” with a few changes and let people who know what they are doing implement it if they need it.
So I activated #ActivityPub on infullflow.net, but the user profile I created cannot be found when I search for it on Mastodon. Not sure what the problem is. Now what?
I wonder if the ActivityPub spec has some allowance for the eliding of the "user" part of a handle. So instead of "@/[email protected]" it could just be "@/myserver.social" (without "/").
If not I think that would be a nice add. Maybe just some convention like "If user not present in handle, assume "@/[email protected]".
"ActivityPub 1.0.0 for WordPress has been released allowing WordPress blogs to be followed by others on apps like Mastodon and others in the fediverse and then receive replies back as comments on their own sites."
Wenn BlueSky also irgendwann public ist, müssten Mastodon-User:innen doch mit Bluesky-User:innen interagieren können, sofern die eigene Mastodon-Instanz mit BlueSky föderiert, oder?
@ebildungslabor
Nein, Friendica föderiert nicht mit Blue Sky. Der Nutzende verwendet eine App, diese spricht über eine API mit BlueSky. Damit besteht nur zwischen den Nutzenden und BlueSky eine Verbindung. Alle weiteren Nutzer eine Instanz oder der Rest des Fediverse ist davon nicht betroffen.
@emaechler Das tut Friendica heute schon. Das eigene Protokoll nennt sich DFRN. Zusätzlich wurden die Protokolle AP, Diaspora, OStatus und weitere Integriert.
Das war die Initiierung der Föderation, aus der das Fediverse wurde.
I think it's been mentioned before but I just want to make sure that everyone here knows that we are having THREE #SocialCG#Swicg#ActivityPub sessions at #TPAC next week.
TPAC is a hybrid working event for the W3C. Some of us will be in person in Seville. If you're not, you can call in and participate remotely.