I’ve got Evan Prodromou blocked so I didn’t see https://tags.pub when it was announced. If you missed it too: it’s a service that listens on relays for hashtags, and boosts posts containing them, to followers following any given hashtag. To give hashtags much more reachability despite the horizon of federation.

I proposed something like this in the context of natural disaster response. Users could come to a consensus on what hashtag to use for, say, # HurricaneFoobar, and posts containing the hashtag could spread far and wide. But because I care about safety, I suggested that it needed selective outbound relaying, so that only posts containing a list of opted-in hashtags were sent to the relay. I see that managing what gets sent to relays is out of scope for tags.pub.

I also don’t see any mention on the github issue list about tags.pub being able to defederate known bad actors, so I guess there’s nothing stopping your posts from reaching poast and friends, due to ActivityPub’s nontransitive defederation behaviour.

User-to-user and user-to-instance blocks will similarly get laundered, so if you let tags.pub boost your posts you may find unwelcome people reading your posts.

So, this is a cool idea, it could be helpful, but it’s not ready yet IMO.

tags.pub

@futzle yet another "add a tag to your profile to control it" which automatically puts it in the bin as far as I'm concerned.

If you think your service needs something this, maybe work on some general profile extension method to allow user preference flagging for new/unknown application permissions first.

But no, I guess that's not cool and fun.

@mike @futzle it's very cool and fun. The cleanest way to opt out is just to block the server. We also respect #NoBots because so many people have it on their profiles. We added #NoTagsPub so if people for some reason wanted other bots but not ours, they could fine tune it.

I think it's a good idea to add a "relayable" flag to accounts; I'll add a FEP for it and we'll implement it.

@evan fuck off, dipshit.
@mike @evan Hey, Mike - I’ve enjoyed following your posts, but that response was unneeded and unnecessary.
@james @mike @evan False. It was very needed, very necessary, and a very appropriate response to a dipshit who thinks exposing strangers to harm is cool and fun. It's something one really needs to fuck off about.
@stibbons @mike @evan If Evan understood the issue - and if the issue was clearly communicated - then possibly. But Mike has decided that he’ll block me for calling out his bad behaviour, so I guess we’ll never know.