This is a draft of what I'll hopefully be submitting to Rebooting Web of Trust. If anyone would like to take a look, constructive feedback welcome:
@emacsen Hey, thanks for putting this all down on paper! some thoughts:
- I don't understand what ocap inboxes achieves over the current ability of moderators and users to block individual actors. how does this meaningfully improve spam-fighting abilities?
- You mention two methods for "Closing the Relay Hole", which both seem very similar to the discussion on https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/319. You seem to gloss over the backwards-compatibility issues though—have you put thought into how you would implement this?
@nightpool Thanks for reading and feedback. It may take me a few replies to answer your question.
OCAP Inboxes offer two distinct advantages. The first is that they're transferable. Let's imagine that instead of inboxes, we were talking about phone numbers. If you call my "default number" you'd get my secretary who screens my calls. If I like you, I'll hand you a card with three phone numbers. Each of these get to me directyl (bypassing my secretary). One of those you use yourself.
@nightpool The code advantages are also very powerful. Without OCAP, I need to do a ton of checks. "Is this account who it claims to be? Are they on a whitelist? Do they meet these checks..."
With OCAP Inbox, I can avoid many of those checks and where I do, they're more simple/contained.
As to replies... I hadn't seen that issue. Thank you.
Yes, AP would need to be modified since the potocol demands that there MUST be a forwarding. Exactly how- I'm not sure yet. Need to think more. about it.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!