-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Formally define the Flag activity for sending reports #14
Comments
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Should we create a ticket for "define how to dereference a Flag activity" e.g., I send you a Flag activity, you can GET that activity back by The big question there is "what the heck should the access controls be?" |
seems to be the same as dereferencing any other object or activity -- if it's Public, then anyone should be able to fetch it, and otherwise you can generally assume that the members of to/cc/audience have permission to (re)fetch it (since it was delivered to them already). there's not really any consideration for access control in as2/ap separately from the addressing properties. |
@trwnh I'm not sure historically if Flag activities have actually had to/cc/audience, because there wasn't a way to address the Moderators of an instance nor an Instance, because ActivityPub didn't define those things (I know there's a FEP proposing this) |
in the absence of addressing properties (i.e. if you just receive an activity in an inbox and it has no further information) then you can generally assume or treat it equivalent to being in bto/bcc |
Okay, so here's my current thinking: {
"type": "Flag",
"id": "https://example.social/flag/:uuid",
"to": "https://target.example/@moderators",
"cc" [
"https://involved.server.example/@mods"
],
"actor": "https://example.social/mods",
"content": "This user was mean to me",
"object": "https://target.example/@badactor",
"evidence": [
"https://target.example/@badactor/s/123",
"https://target.example/@badactor/s/124"
],
"category": "rule_violation"
"rules_violated": [ ..., ... ]
"reporter": "<stable yet masked identifier for reporter>"
} The last few properties would be extensions, defined in FEPs. The to/cc would require moderation group actor discovery, per #24, and it'd be delivered to each participant's inbox. reporter would be the #8, category/rule_ids would be #2, evidence would be #3. |
instead of “evidence” you could use “attachment”
instead of “reporter” you could use a proxy actor for “actor”
“category” and “rules_violated” seem fine although you could *maybe* use
“tag”.
…On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 15:21 Emelia Smith ***@***.***> wrote:
Okay, so here's my current thinking:
{
"type": "Flag",
"id": "https://example.social/flag/:uuid",
"to": ***@***.***",
"cc" [
***@***.***"
],
"actor": "https://example.social/mods",
"content": "This user was mean to me",
"object": ***@***.***",
"evidence": [
***@***.***/s/123",
***@***.***/s/124"
],
"category": "rule_violation"
"rules_violated": [ ..., ... ]
"reporter": "<stable yet masked identifier for reporter>"
}
The last few properties would be extensions, defined in FEPs. The to/cc
would require moderation group actor discovery, per #24
<#24>, and
it'd be delivered to each participant's inbox.
reporter would be the #8
<#8>,
category/rule_ids would be #2
<#2>,
evidence would be #3
<#3>.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#14 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACQ5OX7QH4KEFXDZK4OBVQLZ5KR4TAVCNFSM6AAAAABOZQGTEWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDIMZYG4ZDKNJXGQ>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
from #13 (comment)
related to
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: