Christine Lemmer-Webber

> the reason I like this better then some theoretical advisor flag X-I-Observe-Sharing-Levels that it ties scraping/activity to a specific activitypub actor that can be blocked/tracked/etc in the same way...

IP tracking isn't great, but people can use all sorts of things (including tor) to read, previously. There also wasn't any requirement previously that fetching be done by a *server*......

Especially, do we want to add something that opens up that many problems when there's a not-authenticated option that's an equivalent level of effective+broken, without those problems?

> the problem with using sharingLevel is that it doesn't really fit into how recipients are calculated, which, at least in Pleroma, we calculate a recipient set and then filter...

The problem isn't the label, it's the requirement for authentication, with no extra serious benefit. What both proposals have in common: acknowledgement of an "advisory" policy in order to read...

Hi! So I remember I talked about this with... it was either @Gargron or @nightpool but I don't remember which. Anyway we eventually realized that there's no reason you can't...

We talked about this in the meeting today and we're going to push forward {Reject {Follow}} as a recommended way of doing things in the editor's draft since there seems...

Ah... I have not been using magit-review much lately, though I may return to it again when I get deeper into code review mode. In the meanwhile, you might find...

Hopefully we can get this fixed! That was just a recommendation in the meanwhile if you're frustrated with magit-wazzup :)

You have a few other Lux-related repos doing the same... I'd advocate that once you make a decision that you update all of them.