Hi! As you may be aware, Quote Posts are an often-requested feature for Mastodon, but this is something we are careful to implement properly, offering a proper framework for users to consent to being quoted. Of course, no mechanism will be airtight, there will always be ways to quote someone else, by manually repeating their words, using screenshots and so on. Nevertheless, providing a framework for consent, and adding friction in the absence of consent, is worthwhile. Many existing social…
Live Last read · last published · next check
Meanwhile, I have started exploring the implementation space myself, and in the process of outfitting an ActivityPub bot with the ability to approve quotes, I realized the current schema can be satisfied stateless by handing out a customizable QuoteAuthorization . The one I implemented includes the local and remote post IDs (which need to be referenced in the payload) as GET parameters in its own…
jfietkau: We would need to think about the case where I author an interaction policy giving implicit quoting permission to, let’s say, https://example.com/luka , and then I later Update it to un-declare that permission. What would that mean for the quote posts (there might be multiple) which Luka has made that include my post? Changing the interaction policy on an existing object is established to…
I agree. My bots are very low tech. I can easily add the interactionPolicy JSON to them, but it is a bit of a pain to reply to every QuoteRequest For “human” accounts, I completely get the need to have fine-grained control and to be able to revoke things. But for a bot which posts a link / image / whatever - I think it is overkill. I’d like a permanent “Anyone can quote this” option. Read full…
Yes, I think if I give implicit permission (let’s call it that for now, since “automatic permission” is already taken) to anyone to quote me without an approval stamp, the natural consequence would be that I lose the ability to revoke individual quotes. Is that inherently a problem? Implicit permission would likely only be granted by actors on software that doesn’t support quote permission…
I’m not necessarily opposed to this. My only worry is that this would prevent authors from changing their mind or revoking a quote that has been made. Read full topic
True! That’s my bad, I must be overly excited for quotes. Read full topic
Mastodon 4.5 isn’t out yet. There’s just a bunch of servers running nightlies Read full topic
Now that Mastodon 4.5 is out and we’re starting to see its quote post interactions with Mastodon >=4.4 and other ActivityPub platforms with non-FEP-044f quotes, a question has arisen for me. Mastodon 4.5 renders posts that advertise no quote policy whatsoever as non-quotable. Given the base assumption that FEP-044f quotes require approval, and implementations without a quote policy are presumably…
EDIT: This change has now been merged When writing FEP-044f, I had two reasons for the “author of the quote post is mentioned in the original post” rule of Verifying third-party quotes : consistency with the exception listed in GoToSocial’s interaction policies documentation , trying to not introduce inconsistent rules providing an “escape hatch”, being able to respond to accusations when someone…
I would like to reference this here: Should we ever think of a way how to embed ActivityPub objects into others (in the content)? I kind of feel like the quotes described in FEP-044fConsent-respecting quote posts is just a special case of “Consent-respecting embeds in Objects” but with the constraints that There is only one embed The embeds within the object is not specified, rather a general…
