- cross-posted to:
- fediverse@kbin.social
- fediverse@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- fediverse@kbin.social
- fediverse@lemmy.ml
We recently chatted with two of the devs involved with Bonfire. Honestly, they have some really amazing ideas about building a modular Fediverse platform that developers can build on for their own apps.
That’s a good idea. Google Plus may have been a terrible platform, but the ideas behind it were solid.
However, ActivityPub does not guarantee such restrictions. If two people are on the same server, the server will decide whether or not to honour the request to only show federated posts as described by such rules. Bonfire servers may be able to hide such interactions and refuse to republish them according to your account policies, but if you respond/react to someone on another server, that other server will be the one deciding what interactions are permitted and republished, not Bonfite’s settings. This can lead to awkward situations where everyone but you can see the reply your coworker sent to a reaction you posted.
Without encryption (the way Circles does it), I don’t think ActivityPub servers should advertise these features, not without users being warned about the risks of federation when setting up such distinctions. Even with Circles there’s a risk of a malicious client sharing keys, but at least the unintentional data sharing doesn’t happen because of protocol level design incompatibilities.
Oh, interesting. Curious what the Bonfire devs say about this
I haven’t tried their UI, so I don’t know for sure.
The documentation seems to imply that this is a feature very much designed to be Bonfire-only. Which I’d fine for a network of trusted Bonfire instances, I suppose; with whitelisted federation, you can make such assumptions relatively safely.
I can’t find much about the interoperability risks on the website, though.
Funny thing Google plus took this idea from Diaspora, a social media platform that is still around.