RE: https://neuromatch.social/@jonny/115343246885448739
-
@jonny ... There's also privacy concerns. Few admins will read posts or people's DMs unless something is flagged as abuse, but it looks like what's proposed here puts all of people's content in front of admins and asks them to review it, which is much more invasive than typical use of the instances otherwise.
If instances accept people signing up and posting without review, I question the grounds on which they want to be able to review all of someone's posting history before allowing migration.
@jonny ...To cut a long thread short, my personal feel is that while abuse should be prevented and migration should be managed in a way that respects rate limits and doesn't overload instances, a lot of other instance admin concerns are more fear than reality, and may lead to a solution that raises privacy concerns and the risk of unexpected user data loss, while empowering admins to hinder a process they basically don't want to happen, undermining the whole concept of content portability.
-
@benpate @jonny
These are very consistent in the stuff that both do - it is clear that ActivityPub is already *almost* able to do content portability just by serving up content the way it does. We have a task force within the SocialWebCG working on account portability - jonny would you join a call if we schedule one soon? -
-
jonny@neuromatch.social lisarue@mastodon.geekery.org please keep in mind that simplicity is key. I think that's Jonny's FEP's strength.
The more complicated it is, the less buy-in, and you need all the buy-in you can get!
-
@julian
@lisarue
Thank you for saying so! I tried to keep it as simple as I could and take care to carve out space for low-resource authors to implement gradually, though when all the necessary considerations were on the table it feels more complicated than I would like. Glad it still feels simple to others
-
@jonny ...To cut a long thread short, my personal feel is that while abuse should be prevented and migration should be managed in a way that respects rate limits and doesn't overload instances, a lot of other instance admin concerns are more fear than reality, and may lead to a solution that raises privacy concerns and the risk of unexpected user data loss, while empowering admins to hinder a process they basically don't want to happen, undermining the whole concept of content portability.
@jonny Hi there. Just looked at this again and saw the line "Actors must have some means of changing their mind about a move if the terms of moderation are unacceptable to them after the target instance reviews any imported content."
Not sure if that's new or if I missed it before (sorry if I did!
️), but it could take care of a lot of the concerns I mentioned. Was thinking too maybe instances could say on their about pages about policies for migrated content ("we strip all media" for example). -
@jonny Hi there. Just looked at this again and saw the line "Actors must have some means of changing their mind about a move if the terms of moderation are unacceptable to them after the target instance reviews any imported content."
Not sure if that's new or if I missed it before (sorry if I did!
️), but it could take care of a lot of the concerns I mentioned. Was thinking too maybe instances could say on their about pages about policies for migrated content ("we strip all media" for example).@jonny What happens with this now? Sorry if I'm asking you something that's already documented elsewhere (if it is, am happy to read there instead) - I don't know how these kinds of proposals typically progress, but it would be good to see this keep moving forward. Appreciate all the work you've put into it
-
@jonny What happens with this now? Sorry if I'm asking you something that's already documented elsewhere (if it is, am happy to read there instead) - I don't know how these kinds of proposals typically progress, but it would be good to see this keep moving forward. Appreciate all the work you've put into it
@tokyo_0 sorry i must have missed your replies before - that's a thing i had wanted in the spec but didn't have the time to write immediately, so added it shortly after publishing it. the idea to me is that you should propose moving and know if you wouldn't want to move (and in any circumstance be able to go off grid with your backups and pop up later if it takes you awhile to hunt for an instance)
what happens now is that i'm going to implement it and PR into glitch and masto, and revise it along the way
-
Gonna try and negotiate an acceptable implementation with the masto devs (if u see this no pressure! Ik ur busy), will take a bit of background work like to implement an integrity proofs FEP, so may take a bit, but if you wanna write this with me I would love to work together on this. hopefully its implementable, it's my first spec document ive ever written so idk what I'm doing rly I just think I can write it and wanna move my posts around and break down the feudal fedi
@jonny Hey, are you still working on this FEP?
I wrote a short review a couple of weeks ago. Sometimes SocialHub email notifications don't work, so here's a link to my post in case you missed it: https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/fep-1580-move-actor-objects-with-a-migration-collection/8111/22
-
@jonny Hey, are you still working on this FEP?
I wrote a short review a couple of weeks ago. Sometimes SocialHub email notifications don't work, so here's a link to my post in case you missed it: https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/fep-1580-move-actor-objects-with-a-migration-collection/8111/22
@silverpill
Yep! Just was on vacation and had a conference to do. It's on my list for Monday to do some followup and updates
