I see a discrepancy between the blog post announcing this and the FEP as described here.
-
I see a discrepancy between the blog post announcing this and the FEP as described here. The blog post reads
You will be able to choose whether your posts can be quoted at all.You will be notified when someone quotes you.You will be able to withdraw your post from the quoted context at any time.
But here it is admitted that
Servers not implementing this FEP will still be able to quote the post and provide no dogpiling-reducing friction. There is unfortunately nothing we can do about that.
There is no requirement for servers to implement any specific FEP. Therefor understanding these restrictions is purely optional. E.g. the restrictions can't say "only the author is allowed to quote this post" (as the wording in the blog post makes it sound), it can only say "if you implement this FEP and aren't the author, don't quote this post. Otherwise, feel free to quote".
The biggest problem I see is that current wording make it sound like any server not understanding the FEP is automatically malicious. But if it's optional, it's not malicious to not have it.
I see two ways around this
- Either accept that it is only a best effort and make it clear that servers not implementing this are not malicious.
- Don't send these "more restricted" posts to instances who don't understand the FEP. E.g. when someone sends a post who shouldn't be quoted, it could be restricted to only send to actors who have an indication that they understand this FEP's functionality. In this scenario there are still ways around the quoting, but at least it can then be reasonably considered malicious.
