My main concern here would be that this approach seems to be going in a different direction than the other discussions. (see Standardizing on ActivityPub Groups)
I don’t want to end up with two separate ways to implement a group going forward.
Beyond that:
- The “Announcing activities” thing still seems like a weird Lemmy-ism, though I also never got a clear answer on how activity forwarding is meant to work in general so I suppose this is technically valid
- “Implementations SHOULD ensure that activities wrapped in this way keep all their original data.”
I don’t see how this is meaningful, given that the remote server already can’t trust data being forwarded unless you use LDSigs, which to my understanding already require all the fields - Don’t love the “moderation activity blacklist”, seems like there ought to be a better option to validate these. Broadcasting follows also might make sense for some implementations, I would leave that up to the to/cc fields in the activity itself
- As always,
Deletebelongs to the content author. Something else should be used for group rejection