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.
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?
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.
It seems like doing table partitioning would be an obvious choice for mastodon, but I don't see it anywhere in their setup. Does anyone know if someone has done the legwork to make this work and what their results were?
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?
@haensel@askfedi_de nein, #bluesky will zwar auch angeblich ein dezentralisiertes system aufbauen aber nicht auf basis von #activitypub sonder ihr eigenes protokoll -
siehe: blueskyweb.xyz
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.
1/2 I have deactivated my account on Twitter (X), which began in 2007. Under Elon Musk, Twitter has not only decided to stop blocking bigots and liars and pro-insurrectionists, it has actively welcomed them, with apparent support from Mr. Musk.
@waltmossberg This speaks volumes, Walt. X is indeed a cesspool and your leadership here will have a big impact.
This is an existential moment for the web and the concept of open standards like #ActivityPub
Thankfully @Gargron has labored for years to create a viable approach that could form the foundation for an open social web. And many here are working to make the user experience simpler and more approachable for mainstream users.
Your presence on @Mastodon is incredibly important now.
I attended the first #FediForum - it was a good, useful experience to learn more about the various projects collaborating through #ActivityPub. I’m going to be on vacation this second time so I will unfortunately not be there, but, I recommend it to #Fediverse developers - they have tickets at more accessible price points. I look forward to hearing about outcomes and catching up on the notes when I’m back! https://mastodon.social/@fediforum/111019815056382897
Serious question, no offense or provocation intended: With this stuff being baked into Hubzilla and, apparently, also design-wise into Bluesky / AT, can anyone out here involved with the #ActivityPub specification process outline why nomadic / easily portable identity isn't built-in here by design? Looking at the (to-be-expected) dynamics of instances going up and down, blocking each other or moving to newer, different pieces of software, this seems an absolutely obvious requirement, so I wonder why this has been left out of the standard / spec?
The fragmentation among friends that follows Twitter’s collapse is exactly the kind of problem that Mastodon and the social web solves for. Imagine that you don’t have to pick and choose which new platform to adopt, or make and maintain a million accounts—because you can follow anyone regardless of which platform they’re on. That’s our reality.
Threads now has a Supplemental Privacy Policy (https://help.instagram.com/515230437301944) regarding "Third Party Services" like Mastodon. Should Threads interconnect with Mastodon via #ActivityPub, this addresses what they will do with our data.
Note that they will collect information from anyone "allowing Threads users to follow you or interact with your content". The information they collect will include your profile, your content, and your interactions.
A few weeks ago I asked about Fediverse apps that are as unlike as Mastodon as possible. People pointed me to some quite interesting ones, like playing chess over ActivityPub or public transport delay announcements https://social.coop/@J12t/110843539252937792