I've been looking into multi-format posting and I think there are some great opportunities that ActivityPub provides here. I love the #BookWyrm approach. Unfortunately #atproto currently has some limitations here: https://rochebit.net/posts/lexicon-dilemma
Roche
@rochebit
- 1 Followers
- 9 Following
- 5 Posts
If we were to try to solve this we could try to standardise url schemes (but that doesn't work as well into the open nature of ActivityPub). Or we could really push on these server implementations to handle Move activities properly, not only respecting the Move in their own cache (which many don't even do now), but updating all their references in other notes, etc as well. Then server migration, or even account portability would be much easier, which would be great for the ecosystem.
Exporting and importing private keys would be easy enough for these server implementations to handle if that was the only thing holding them back. But it's these url schemes being baked into the IDs of objects that is the big killer. It just builds this really heavy backlog if your server implementation has to handle any url scheme of any other server (with new ones also being created).
Kick-starting my new blog with some thoughts on the open social web:
https://rochebit.net/#/posts/open-social-web
@evan I agree that users should have this choice and be able to opt out of a relay. I can also imagine scenarios I might want to opt out of one relay but be fine with another relay. But should a special control be built for relays, that are just one type of ActivityPub server? Or should creators just have controls that can applied to restrict their content from any ActivityPub server?