@unattributed 𓂃✍︎ @Ben Pate 🤘🏻 @Social Web Foundation @Sovereign Tech Agency @Bonfire Ideally, one day, the highly advanced permissions system available on Hubzilla (based on Zot, ActivityPub optional), (streams) (based on Nomad, ActivityPub optional) and Forte (based on ActivityPub) would be cast into one or multiple FEPs.

This would solve this issue by not only controlling who receives a DM, but also who is permitted to see the DM. In combination with FEP-171b Conversation Containers (which was invented on (streams), inherited by Forte and backported to Hubzilla), the permissions of the DM would be inherited by all comments and replies to the DM with no way of ever changing these permissions anywhere in the conversation.

See, if I send a DM to Alice and Bob, then only Alice, Bob and I are permitted to see the DM. Also, only Alice, Bob and I are permitted to participate in the conversation, and Alice, Bob and I can see each comment and reply, but only the three of us are permitted to see them. The entire conversation has the exact same permissions all over, inherited from the initial DM.

Anyone of us can mention Carol all we want. But that does not give her permission to see anything in the conversation, not even the comment/reply that mentions her. Once the initial DM is out, its permissions are set in stone, and it's also set in stone that any and all follow-ups in the same conversation have the same permissions as the initial DM.

This does not even require encryption. That said, at least Hubzilla does offer encryption on top of the permissions system; however, it's only compatible within Hubzilla AFAIK.

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Hubzilla #Streams #(streams) #Forte #FEP_171b #ConversationContainers #Permission #Permissions #DM #DMs #DirectMessage #DirectMessages #PrivateMessage #PrivateMessages

@glsbank Wird das jetzt so was wie bei #dm? Von wegen Polarisierung bringt nix?