Deleting a post vs deleting an entire comment tree
Technical Discussion
65
Posts
15
Posters
64
Views
-
@mat @julian if the redaction is coming from the author, they can send a Delete to anywhere they expect to have stored a copy.
if the redaction is coming from the aggregator, they can send a Remove to anywhere relevant.
but these are always going to be best-effort, because of 2 main reasons:
- you don't have a way to track everyone who has a copy.
- your peers might not agree with what "badly" means.generally, the answer to "how do i delete a tree" is "you can't", because trees aren't real.
@trwnh @julian Yes everything will be best effort. In this situation it's valuable to send a message "please hide the tree under this post", using whatever vocabulary. When it's working, peers will hide posts that the original author never even saw. Perhaps some people will still see parts of the tree, but the fewer the better. "You can't do it perfectly" is importantly different from "you can't".
The point is, the current situation is ambiguous on a technical level. I send a delete message, but there's no way for a receiver to know my intent: did I want just that post deleted, or the entire tree?
I absolutely can enforce that all my peers agree on what "badly" means, by defederating from servers that disagree. The predictable problem here is that when I start doing that, everyone's gonna end up in a fight about what the spec means.
I don't really mind whether the spec says instances SHOULD or MAY hide the reply tree, or if it adds a field to specify one or the other, but it should be explicit. There's a real need here, but if the answer is MAY, then the need should be addressed some other way, such as reply control.
-
@trwnh @julian Yes everything will be best effort. In this situation it's valuable to send a message "please hide the tree under this post", using whatever vocabulary. When it's working, peers will hide posts that the original author never even saw. Perhaps some people will still see parts of the tree, but the fewer the better. "You can't do it perfectly" is importantly different from "you can't".
The point is, the current situation is ambiguous on a technical level. I send a delete message, but there's no way for a receiver to know my intent: did I want just that post deleted, or the entire tree?
I absolutely can enforce that all my peers agree on what "badly" means, by defederating from servers that disagree. The predictable problem here is that when I start doing that, everyone's gonna end up in a fight about what the spec means.
I don't really mind whether the spec says instances SHOULD or MAY hide the reply tree, or if it adds a field to specify one or the other, but it should be explicit. There's a real need here, but if the answer is MAY, then the need should be addressed some other way, such as reply control.
@mat @julian if the intent is "please hide the tree under this post", then Remove(object=[n posts],target=thread) is the most straightforward way to say that in a single statement: "removed n posts from this thread"
this is something that isn't currently widely supported, but it should be. the main challenge is that not everyone understands Remove, and not everyone is equipped to handle batches. it can be overcome, but also is a more general issue.
-
@mat @julian if the intent is "please hide the tree under this post", then Remove(object=[n posts],target=thread) is the most straightforward way to say that in a single statement: "removed n posts from this thread"
this is something that isn't currently widely supported, but it should be. the main challenge is that not everyone understands Remove, and not everyone is equipped to handle batches. it can be overcome, but also is a more general issue.
@mat @julian i think that "defederate everyone who disagrees" will likely result in isolated clusters of each software only federating with other instances of the same software. maybe friendica and misskey can reach some limited consensus among themselves, but are friendica and misskey admins prepared to defederate every mastodon/pixelfed/pleroma/etc server over this?
-
@mat @julian i think that "defederate everyone who disagrees" will likely result in isolated clusters of each software only federating with other instances of the same software. maybe friendica and misskey can reach some limited consensus among themselves, but are friendica and misskey admins prepared to defederate every mastodon/pixelfed/pleroma/etc server over this?
@mat @julian one of my... "favorite"... examples of this kind of breakdown is that there is no specified way to remove a follower. if you accept someone's follow, then how do you revert? do you Undo Accept, do you Reject Follow, do you Remove from followers? even when two peers agree on a method (say Reject Follow at any point), they might still fail to agree for other reasons. one nasty bug between misskey and pleroma is that misskey generates ids for Follows that pleroma considers invalid.
-
@mat @julian if the intent is "please hide the tree under this post", then Remove(object=[n posts],target=thread) is the most straightforward way to say that in a single statement: "removed n posts from this thread"
this is something that isn't currently widely supported, but it should be. the main challenge is that not everyone understands Remove, and not everyone is equipped to handle batches. it can be overcome, but also is a more general issue.
trwnh@mastodon.social said in Deleting a post vs deleting an entire comment tree:
> Remove(object=[n posts],target=thread)That would indeed be the most explicit, but that isn't needed from threadiverse because that information is already contained when you set object to the context itself.
It's even resolvable! So there's no need to send your own array of items that might be out of date by the time it is delivered.
Hence why I advocate for
Remove(Context) -
@julian what does Remove(Context) mean here?
-
@julian what does Remove(Context) mean here?
trwnh@mastodon.social it signals that the actor is removing the context from the targeted audience.
The audience can optionally announce it, and receivers synchronizing with that audience (per 1b12) should follow suit and remove the context as well.
-
@julian like removing a whole thread from the forum? Remove(object=thread, target=forum)? this seems like something altogether different than removing posts from a thread.
removing threads from a forum is possible but if the thread is owned by the forum then the forum can also delete them.
the part that differs between impls is whether Delete(thing that is a context) should do anything to objects where context = the Delete.object, right? i think it makes the most sense to just orphan them.
-
@julian like removing a whole thread from the forum? Remove(object=thread, target=forum)? this seems like something altogether different than removing posts from a thread.
removing threads from a forum is possible but if the thread is owned by the forum then the forum can also delete them.
the part that differs between impls is whether Delete(thing that is a context) should do anything to objects where context = the Delete.object, right? i think it makes the most sense to just orphan them.
trwnh@mastodon.social specifically however, is that you're not deleting the context. Just removing it.
NodeBB has the concept of a context not belonging to an audience (the "uncategorized" pseudo category.) in those specific situations, contexts would be removed from the audience, not deleted.
Lemmy and Piefed don't have these concepts, so they simply delete them. So therein lies some of the confusion I believe.
-
@julian the confusing thing to me, though, is that both Delete and Remove already don't imply anything about posts in the thread if the thread is deleted/removed from the forum.
by default, if you Delete a thread, the forum might still have a broken link to the now-deleted thread, and the posts also have broken links to the thread.
by default, if you Remove a thread from the forum, the posts still exist within the thread.
-
@julian the confusing thing to me, though, is that both Delete and Remove already don't imply anything about posts in the thread if the thread is deleted/removed from the forum.
by default, if you Delete a thread, the forum might still have a broken link to the now-deleted thread, and the posts also have broken links to the thread.
by default, if you Remove a thread from the forum, the posts still exist within the thread.
@julian if the intent is to signal what happens when nodebb moves a thread to "uncategorized", then i think the simplest thing is for nodebb to treat "uncategorized" as a forum in itself, still. you already assign them an id of -1, so you are in effect treating the "uncategorized" category as a category still.
-
@julian if the intent is to signal what happens when nodebb moves a thread to "uncategorized", then i think the simplest thing is for nodebb to treat "uncategorized" as a forum in itself, still. you already assign them an id of -1, so you are in effect treating the "uncategorized" category as a category still.
@julian i'd say the confusion is primarily that we've shifted topic around several different things and i'm still not sure which is the intended topic of the discussion :x
- deleting posts that are in a thread
- removing posts from a thread
- implications for downstream posts in a thread when some ancestor in the reply chain is deleted/removed
- deleting a thread that is in a forum
- removing a thread from a forum
- moving a thread to the "uncategorized" forum
- ...?
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@trwnh@mastodon.social oooh that's interesting. I actually commented on the former.
But I am realizing now that NodeBB actually explicitly addresses quite a few people because we try to keep everybody in the loop.
Responding to a topic with hundreds of posts could mean a Note object with hundreds of individual users addressed in cc.
Perhaps it's wiser to not assume "addressed? generate notification.", and instead have configurable notifications based on thread/context participation.
-
@julian @mayel subtle difference: sharedInbox is not delivering to the individual inboxes, and it is not strictly delivering to the addressed actors either. what it *actually* means is "make the shared inbox decide who gets it, using the addressing as a *hint*". in theory, the shared inbox is supposed to distribute the activity to the appropriate inboxes internally. this, of course, leads to Problems when the shared inbox doesn't understand a specific recipient (like with private collections)
-
@julian thanks, i hate it
i mean, i get it... but i hate it xD
i would rather mastodon fixed this in mastodon, but i wouldn't blame you if you did. mainly, mastodon should use to/cc/audience when composing a post, not tag.
we have https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/32242 which is the inverse (receiving, not posting). i just filed https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/37568 for the other direction (posting, not receiving)
-
@mayel@bonfire.cafe oh that is an interesting choice. I suppose that makes sense, I never really thought about it. NodeBB just sends to shared inbox if available.
-
@julian@activitypub.space Hi yes we send to sharedInbox when there's more than one recipient on that instance, otherwise direct to to the user's inbox.
-
Hi @mayel@sunbeam.city, does Bonfire utilise the sharedInbox value?
I noticed this come through my nginx logs today:
128.140.127.206 - - [21/Jan/2026:19:58:04 +0000] "POST /uid/1/inbox HTTP/1.1" 500 128 "-" "https://btfree.social - Bonfire ActivityPub federation" "-"
/uid/1/inbox is an endpoint specified in my user's inbox, but that actor also sends "endpoints":{"sharedInbox":"https://activitypub.space/inbox"}, so wanted to double-check that Bonfire uses it. It should, it helps reduce the number of requests to send if multiple users belong to the same server :smile:
-
@julian (I replied to this from Hubzilla, but it doesn't seem to have showed up, so reposting from Mastodon... sorry for the duplicate)
Yes, it does.
I think FEP-171b is the relevant spec; Mike Macgirvin's description of Conversation Containers might be relevant too.
It's running Hubzilla, which is already listed as an implementer of FEP-f228.
-
Hey @fentiger@zotum.net, I was debugging something @thisismissem sent me a couple days back, and in the process of doing so discovered that Zotum.net serves context with activities!
It looks to be following FEP f228, and would be one of the few implementations that serves activities. The bug related to handling context collections specifically sending activities, so that was a fun dive :smirk:
Ping @silverpill@mitra.social, the FEP could be amended to include Zotum (or whatever the software is called)
