Product vs Protocol

!Hubzilla Advocacy
Sometimes people are advocating a product... Hubzilla, Mastodon... other times, an underlying protocol... Zot, ActivityPub.

I'm thinking many folks, even some "techs", have the incorrect and conflated impression that

We need clear messaging to break out of the confusion.
A moderation tool is the next logical step.  I have no idea whether AP can/cannot... it's just that everyone is talking about it and expectations are high.  

In some circles, Mastodon is getting a huge credit for "inventing" things when in reality they should just get appropriate credit for IMPLEMENTING certain things... even then, some have said they don't fully follow some standards.

Here's another example, FWIW:


Yeah, I had read about that. I think people see this as ID verification when really it's just id linking. I can set up a complicated web and "build an id" but it doesn't necessarily link it to "the real world". I think that ancor is important.
Sure it can (federate moderation) and some other projects have already implemented this. I've got some minimal support for these messages but they need more work. Mostly, I believe in self-moderation through settings sane permissions - which is impossible in ActivityPub. But yeah, you can use the protocol to send a warn or block to the instance admin. I will eventually implement that part. I'm *not* going to implement shared (federated) block lists. I don't believe somebody in Germany should have the right to censor something that appears on my server, no matter how distasteful it might be; because that means they have the means to censor *anything* that appears on my server.  

I've also started on rel-me verification (which we've supported on the outgoing side for years). To make it really valuable we'd have to restructure the profile elements a bit.