silverpill@mitra.social I thought about checking against the outbox, but there's a potential race condition that could occur if I receive the Create(Note) at roughly the same time as the community, but the community hasn't processed the activity yet. In that scenario, the activity would not be in the outbox for checking. The same thing would happen if there was some out-of-band check for object membership in a collection (not that there is one right now).

Hey rimu@piefed.social thanks for responding (and sorry for the late reply!) I am not married to the Announce([Article|Note|Page]) approach, so I am definitely open to Create([Article|Note|Page]) with a back-reference. I think I went the former direction because there is a known fallback mechanism — the Announce is treated as a share/boost/repost as normal. However, sending the Create also is fine I think. However, do we need a backreference? In my limited research, it seems that Piefed, et al. picks the first Group actor and associates the post with that community. If I sent over a Create(Article) with two Group actors addressed, could Piefed associate the post with the first, and initiate a cross-post with the remaining Group actors? Secondly, is how to handle sync. 1b12 relies on communities having reciprocal followers in order for two-way synchronization to be established. On my end since I know it is cross-posted I will now send 1b12 activities to cross-posted communities, but can Piefed, et al. send 1b12 activities back as well, in the absence of followers? cc andrew_s@piefed.social nutomic@lemmy.ml melroy@kbin.melroy.org bentigorlich@gehirneimer.de

@trwnh@mastodon.social sure, makes sense. That to/cc already exist in the wild as arrays means one less thing to worry about with multiple cross posts.