Also "Topics" and Services we can subscribe to seems related.
Future plans for groups:
Humanetech: I’d like to have a social network that aligns with https://sociocracy30.org/
you’ve got a name / more formal alternative to that. sociocracy is more for communities, which is where these group features come from, which are just the start
lain: what I found is that currently everyone implementing groups does it pretty much the same way…
you have the actor, you follow the actor, it mentions everything that mentions this actor…
I’d argue that’s not a group at all but a repeater. I’d say that’s not a group but more a repeater of posts, like a hashtag.
What I’m interested in building is that since we have these chat messages now that can only be addressed to one actor, since we can send a message to that group, to a closed group usually, can send these on to the members.
I want to emphasize a distinction between followers of a group and members.
We have join and leave and there should be different ways to address these collections of people. I think these are not the same thing, following and members
What are the use cases?
Lain: We have vocabulary in it for this reason, make it an explicit member collection, or make it a group with public announcements, or etc have a pleroma group with only those members chatting in it.
Like a telegram channel?
Yes like that probably… so yes you can use it as a moderated thing
Gregory: I agree with the point that this thing that’s now called a group is a weird workaround to stay compatible with mastodon… I reallly want really real groups
Lain: One reason this is called a group because this is what gnu social called a group, so it keeps hanging around
Michael: and its an adoption of the same forum part for years
Gregory: this makes sense actually, since I’m doing everything from scratch… I think it makes sense that I do it like… my vision says it should be done. If you have seen my proposed socialhub… I think I’ve posted some screenshots of how it should look. It should be compatible with existing microblogging software. The biggest problem is figuring out how to federate all posts, so if I post something how does it actually go to the instance
Chris: what’s your plan if A and B are members of a chat on server C?
Lain: In this case it’s from only if it sees its on the member list, the group maintains all the management and trust on server C
Lain: Of course if that goes down the whole group goes down
Gregory: about authority, since I’m copying “the russian facebook” the group administrators have the authority to delete everything, to expel members from the group, etc etc.
I think I would just duplicate that.
So if you post to a group that is located on another server and then the admin wants to delete the post, then the server sends a delete activity to all members and their servers would just delete their post from the local storage including your local storage
In my implementation comments on posts are not like they are in mastodon where they are posts of their own so they don’t exist in isolation, only in the context of the toplevel posts
can always delete any comments they wish.
gregory: I won’t be allowing groups to have an identity on which they can post. the problem that arrive with that is you have regular humans that interact within the group and with each other and then you have these overlord posts.
It’s important that people are and feel equal… no inequality introduced by having the capability for admins to post anonymously basically
strypey: what about a use case where a political party wants to talk about individual posts of the party or those of an organization
gregory: you can just make a user account to represent the entire party. but intentionally takes some effort to set this up
Strypey: if you have the accounts of the political party it has the same problem.
Chris: we already have organization actors
Gregory; one thing I also asked on socialhub… one thing you need for groups and etc is one concept, a collection wned by someone that other actors can add objects to. you want people to be able to add objects there, create topics there, post pictures in the albums, etc. I think this is really a massive work for that. A really important pattern in social media applications, not addressed by the specification in any way
Lain: you do have the add and remove words and join and leave. No reason only the owner of the collection should be able to use those
Gregory: I want to be able to create photo objects that don’t belong to myself, belong to the group. If I simply do a create activity, I have no way to indicate I created feeds for something else
Lain: I’m not sure that’s a good way to use it… let the group be the actor that creates it even though you are the one that does it?
Gregory: No, I want it to be me that its me creating it but the group owns and has authority over it
Lain: sounds like a case for ocaps
Cwebber: maybe I’ll make that more concrete at the hackathon
Sebastian: we’d like group flows, that’s coming up on socialhub