Yeah, though it's not actually federating the Moodle LMS but rather creating a new education-focused social network (which will also be accessible from within Moodle).
@acka47 We just use some standard Activities supported by other implementations so far. We do have custom Objects, but they're done as extensions of standard Objects (like Link) so other implementations can interoperate without knowing anything about MoodleNet.
@emsenn I saw that :D I have "main jeans" which I like so much (and are in perfect condition despite being worn constantly for years) that I just got an extra pair of the same.
Good point! Do you think adding that individuals involved can opt-out of anonymity would help? Otherwise how would you word it? Keeping in mind that this is designed to be enforced in a decentralised/federated way (starting with community/group moderators, then instance administrators, and finally Moodle HQ being able to cut instance off of the "mothership").
"Smart" and networked proprietary devices should be very much called what they are: dystopian junk.
If you want a less polemic term, use "automated surveillance devices," but really all of these TVs, home assistants, toasters, fridges, smoke detectors, etc. are dystopian junk.
We need "low tech" appliances, and we need personal computing devices that are, by design, fully controllable by the people using them.
I'm not sure what you meant, but IMO Tusky (as an example) is not violating Freedom 0 because any developer can modify the code as they wish, and redistribute the fork as well. It would be going against the Tusky team's freedoms to expect them to distribute a build that can be used by anybody for any purpose they wish (not to mention technically impossible to create software that contains any feature imaginable!)
Anyway, I looped you in more for the discussion about federated blocklists.
That idea sounds exactly like mail blacklists (RBLs), which have already existed for some time, so I wonder if that infrastructure could be minimally modified for this purpose.
Yeah, once we have federation working on CommonsPub/MoodleNet we could for example use the existing functionality to enable this, with communities (ActivityPub Group Actors, meaning several users working together) curating lists of links (ActivityPub Collections) to instances or users/actors they suggest blocking. Then users/apps/instances could subscribe to those lists (ActivityPub Follow) in order to keep their copy (which is added to their blacklist) up to date. Future functionality could allow more open collaboration on those lists too (upvote/downvote of entries, submission of suggested additions or amendments, etc)
Tl/dr: More needs to be done to fund open development, including more pressure on companies to donate to projects they benefit from, unionising, alternative licences and more donations in general.
This made me wonder, should there be a day on the Fediverse where we promote donations to a particular project? For example a #SupportSunday?
@mayel I think this is a very good idea, not only on the application level, but also for instances and end users. It would be a much better way than word-of-mouth and public-service-announcement block recommendations.