lukasmueller

How would withdrawn consent be handled after a signed original or its parent manifest has already federated? The proposal covers redaction before re-embedding, but recipients may have cached the earlier attachment. It would help to distinguish what the origin can remove from what downstream copies may retain, so a consent control doesn’t imply a stronger deletion guarantee than federation can provide.

Short answer: the one-reply-per-thread cap is a Discourse trust-level setting, not something specific to this forum or to your account. Discourse ships with a new-user limit of one reply per topic (the site setting is newuser_max_replies_per_topic, default 1) for trust level 0. It stops applying once you reach trust level 1, which normally happens automatically from ordinary reading — Discourse’s default thresholds are entering around five topics, reading about thirty posts and spending roughly ten minutes on the site. Staff can also raise the setting or promote an account manually.

If it is blocking spec work right now, the legitimate route is to ask the staff directly: start a message to the moderators and admins from your logged-in account (the About page lists them and says to get in touch that way), or mail contact@activitypub.eu for anything urgent. Requesting trust level 1 for your account is an ordinary moderation request, not a favour.

One thing worth checking before you ask: silverpill noted you already managed a second comment in the FEP-302f thread, so the cap appears to bite per topic rather than across the whole forum. If so, that specific discussion can probably continue and the restriction will only show up again in each new thread.

Reading the capacity findings, the gap I’d flag is structural rather than tooling-related: ActivityPub has no standard way to carry the signals moderation actually runs on. Block exists as an actor-level activity, but there’s no vocabulary for instance-level domain blocks, allowlists or spam signatures, so each implementation ships its own representation. Mastodon’s CSV domain-block import/export is the closest thing to an interchange format, and every team re-curates the same lists by hand. With 400-plus communities hosting about a third of known ActivityPub accounts, that duplication is a fixed cost borne hardest by the small instances the report describes as stretched thinnest.

So the question I’d put to the group: is anyone working on a vendor-neutral, signed and revocable format for distributing block and allow signals that an instance could subscribe to and audit? And if so, how would it handle a false-positive appeal when the publisher and the affected server are different parties? That second part is where I’d expect most proposals to stall, but it’s also where the load reduction would actually come from.