HollieFound my way into a great #FediForum discussion on implementing the ability to create private groups, and it startled me how emphatically a few folks were puzzled why this would be desired. One person repeatedly characterized private groups as "hiding from the public square". It feels like issues of harassment (sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.) are talked about with such urgency (at least in my circles?) - I can't be the only hearing that? The public square isn't safe for everyone.
Mike Macgirvin 🖥️Have supported private groups and circles/aspects for years now. I don't know how anybody would think that privacy is optional. I don't see a lot of people taking showers in the public square. If you're interested, I've made this work available to other ActivityPub services that wish to implement it through a delivery model I call "conversation containers". It basically extends on some existing FEPs to let you implement contained conversations and not have the protected conversations boosted across the fediverse. I've got some background docs if you're interested.
silverpill>In a constrained conversation, conforming implementations will implement FEP-400e with some very minor additions
In a constrained conversation we work with activities, not objects, is that correct? If so, should "context" collection contain activities or objects?
It seems to me that FEP-400e was written with objects in mind. I think it might be helpful if you clarify this moment in documentation.
>In a constrained conversation, the target->id and the context are identical. This provides easy identification.
In "Add to conversation" example the context is
https://streams.lndo.site/conversation/ed4775f8-18ee-46a5-821e-b2ed2dc546e8
and the target.id of the Add activity is
https://streams.lndo.site/item/ed4775f8-18ee-46a5-821e-b2ed2dc546e8
A similar inconsistency exists in "Conversation owner Adds the reply to the conversation Collection" example.
Thanks @[email protected] - good catch. I've updated the documentation, now fixing the code I used to generate it.
Correct that we're dealing with collections of activities, not simple objects. I've documented that as well.
Correct that we're dealing with collections of activities, not simple objects. I've documented that as well.