After reviewing FEP-5624: Per-object reply control policies and GoToSocial's interaction policy spec, I find myself leaning toward the latter for long-term considerations, though both have merit.
FEP-5624 is admirably focused and simpler to implement, which I appreciate. However, #GoToSocial's approach seems to offer some architectural advantages:
- The three-tier permission model (allow/require approval/deny) feels more flexible than binary allow/deny
- Separating approval objects from interactions appears more secure against forgery
- The explicit handling of edge cases (mentioned users, post authors) provides clearer semantics
- The extensible framework allows for handling diverse interaction types, not just replies
I wonder if creating an #FEP that extracts GoToSocial's interaction policy design into a standalone standard might be worthwhile. It could potentially serve as a more comprehensive foundation for access control in #ActivityPub.
This is merely my initial impression though. I'd be curious to hear other developers' perspectives on these approaches.
#FEP5624 #fedidev #fediverse #replycontrol #interactionpolicy
