ilja:B@social.example.org really likes the drawing and wants to bring attention to it, quoting the post "Look what awesome drawing, this is so cool!
-
ilja:
- B@social.example.org really likes the drawing and wants to bring attention to it, quoting the post "Look what awesome drawing, this is so cool! :blobfoxaww: "
- A@quote-controls.example.org, expecting that other are not allowed to quote post, somehow learns that B@social.example.org did quote the post.
- A@quote-controls.example.org is now very angry at B@social.example.org even though B@social.example.org did nothing wrong.
It would be up to A's software at
ilja:quote-controls.example.orgto explain to A that B's post is "unverified".quote-controls.example.orgmight hide or reject or modify B's post, which means A is not seeing the same thing as what B is seeing, or what C or D might see as outside observers. If C checks for the stamp and finds it missing, it can apply a policy that isn't necessarily the same as A's policy; perhaps A strips the quote from the post, C collapses the post under a clickthrough warning, and D drops the post entirely. Everything looks fine to B, but what matters here is how everyone else behaves. In my opinion, the most consistent policy is what A is doing: to ignore the Link tag that makes it a "quote", but leave the fallback incontent. You might also consider parsing the Link tag and stripping the placeholder but refusing to render the embedded preview, but it's probably better to show a simple link instead of showing a useless box. This stuff is all up to the various implementations, though -- all we can do at a protocol level is allow people to verify stamps as an optional step (and then it's a matter of policy on whether you require stamps or not). The intent is for more servers over time to understand, respect, and validate stamps. If a server doesn't do this, then there isn't anything that can be done other than to apply policies like blocking that server. This is up to users and admins to decide on a case-by-case basis.this is more like how current dm’s were originally implemented in ostatus [...] They were first implemented in public posts in a similar optional way by adding some property which would be ignored by instances not understanding it, so dm’s started to “leak” through implementations who didn’t understand this optional extension
Yeah, that's the gist of it. But it still comes down to policy in the end:
ilja:you’re still free to quote post anyhow, I’ll just ignore it myself and others may as well”.
which should be the default expectation.
Think of it like this: anyone can link to anything. It’s not a matter of capability. But what you want to prove is that consent was obtained. That’s what the stamp does. I suggested the name “stamp” precisely to draw the analogy to how actual stamps work.
Trying to negotiate it as a capability is more trouble than it’s worth at this stage. But I do think some kind of protocol negotiation would be useful to have as a more general framework. This kind of effort is something I proposed as a SocialCG task force back in November, but it never got resolved because the focus right now is on charter stuff.
