alemi/upub
alemi/upub
1
0
Fork 1
Code Issues 4 Pull requests Projects Releases Packages 1 Wiki Activity Actions

chore: explain why AP likes addressing sucks

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
əlemi 2025-01-15 02:10:24 +01:00
parent 9ae00a4a0c
commit deedd23aa9
Signed by: alemi
GPG key ID: A4895B84D311642C
1 changed files with 8 additions and 0 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

8
upub/core/src/traits/process.rs
View file

@ -112,6 +112,14 @@ pub async fn process_like(ctx: &crate::Context, activity: impl apb::Activity, tx
// likes without addressing are "silent likes", process them but dont store activity or notify // likes without addressing are "silent likes", process them but dont store activity or notify
let aid = if likes_local_object || !activity.addressed().is_empty() { let aid = if likes_local_object || !activity.addressed().is_empty() {
let mut activity_model = ctx.insert_activity(activity, tx).await?; let mut activity_model = ctx.insert_activity(activity, tx).await?;
// TODO mastodon and misskey don't put any addressing at all in their likes, but treat all
// likes as public by default. this is quite disrespectful to be honest: they are
// effectively leaking my likes regardless of me explicitly marking them as
// followers-only. since i don't want to be bullied into this really bad behaviour i end
// up with almost all likes having private scope. to make them somewhat functional, i
// force set the like-receiver as a `to` target, so that they can see this like regardless
// of the empty addressing. as side effect, we know when we get "upvoted" from lemmy,
// which instead would expect likes to be anonymous. oh well...
if likes_local_object { if likes_local_object {
activity_model.to.0.push(obj.attributed_to.clone().unwrap_or_default()); activity_model.to.0.push(obj.attributed_to.clone().unwrap_or_default());
} }