Post · A small Bonfire corner on the internet

Apologies in advance if I misrepresented anybody or missed any crucial bits of information.

Attendees

Julian (@julian@activitypub.space)
Ted Thibodeau Jr (he/him) (OpenLinkSw.com) // GitHub:@TallTed // Mastodon:@TallTed
Jesse Karmani ( @jesseplusplus@mastodon.social)

Mastodon context issues (backfill not possible at the moment)
Context (topic/thread) deletion and moving between audiences (communities/categories)
- Draft FEP for the above
Deleting entire tree vs. one post. with_replies or Remove(Context)?
Cross-posting (stalled?)

Backfill not possible, context remains null
Claire and David are aware, can this be reproduced locally? @jesseplusplus
Mastodon keeps track of the conversation, but not what the root-level ID is; Frequency keeps track of the parents. This was new to Mastodon codebase (all internally)
- Possibly the code shared for this is not working
- Jesse will take a look (diff b/w Decodon and Mastodon)
- Ted: in-reply-to tracking is akin to parent tracking
- Jesse: Not quite; Mastodon now tracks root-level ID (that's the piece that might not be working.)

The other (harder) half: FEP f228
Jesse made David aware of the possibility of using f228 to backfill
Asked whether this would conflict with existing reply tree crawling — suspect it will not.
Expected 6–12 months out (or more)
tl;dr — no update available, but none was expected either.

Pre-Draft FEP
ActivityPub.Space Discussion
Genesis of this FEP from needs of ActivityPub.Space. It bridges Microblogiverse and Threadiverse by importing discussions by hashtag (#activitypub among others)
- Lots of curation needed as people tend to use the #activitypub hashtag when discussing non-AP things
- Also non-English content, etc. (ActivityPub.Space is English-focused as we have two mods, Julian and another temporary mod from toot.wales/IFTAS)
Pre-draft shared with Rimu ( @rimu@piefed.social) and Felix ( @nutomic@lemmy.ml) for their thoughts, discussion (linked above) started last night for some additional input.
No opposition to Move(Context) as it is not a functionality that is implemented by anybody at the moment
- Hooray for greenfield AP dev!

Remove(Context) received some pushback from Lemmy. This was expected as both Lemmy and Piefed currently use Delete(Object)
Felix is recommending that Delete(Object) can supply with_replies property to explicitly denote that the entire reply tree is to be deleted.
Julian is recommending that Remove(Context) be used to explicitly denote that the reply-tree/container itself is removed, context can be resolved to determine which exact object IDs to delete if needed, Remove also tells you which audience/community it was removed from.
Rimu OK with either approach.
Felix raised objection to the wording that Delete(Post) is shown under "backwards compatibility" — Julian will update to reflect equal priority on both approaches.

Julian admits that it is likely much much easier for Lemmy to update their handling of Delete vs. creating a new handler for Remove.
Julian notes disconnect with current behaviour (Delete(Object)) and new behaviour (same, but with_replies) and the actual effect (removal from the community); you cannot actually delete someone else's content because it does not satisfy same-origin constraint (yes, sometimes, but not always.)
Currently at an impasse as to how to proceed, but Julian encourages parties present to contribute to the discussion and review the FEP.
Would prefer alignment as opposed to supporting both Remove and Delete(Object) w/ replies given that it is unlikely both will be implemented widely.

Relevant Mentions