Post by @julian@fietkau.social

2026-09-20 23:19 UTC

@julian@activitypub.space @silverpill@mitra.social I believe it's mainly this: https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/171b/fep-171b.md#moderation If the context owner refuses to acknowledge any and all incoming replies, the thread is effectively locked. The approach seems like it would pair well with either interaction policies on the context object and/or a FEP-c0d0-like flag, so actors can know in advance which kinds of activities are likely to succeed or fail, i.e. so UI hints can be provided (grayed out buttons etc).

Replies (1)

@silverpill@mitra.social 2026-09-21 07:00

If the context owner refuses to acknowledge any and all incoming replies, the thread is effectively locked. @julian@fietkau.social That's correct. Context owner distributes approved activities to participants and also maintains a collection containing only approved activities. Replies (or reactions) that have not been approved are considered rejected. A similar mechanism exists in Interaction Policies but it is post-based rather than conversation-based, and with Accept activity instead of Add. Some FEP-171b implementations add canReply flag. I should probably mention it in the FEP but it is basically the color of the bike shed. The actual control mechanism is much more important. @technical-discussion @julian

Open ##5422860