except instance A will actively reject such content from B users when it hears about it from C.
generally it should be expected not to see any new content from B, but historic content will still exist and basically be in a frozen state.
except instance A will actively reject such content from B users when it hears about it from C.
generally it should be expected not to see any new content from B, but historic content will still exist and basically be in a frozen state.
the main problem is still that reports are not reliably getting to remote moderators: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/4744
other than that it should be working.
starting with 0.19.4, at least user settings will default to their browser’s accepted languages on registration: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/pull/4550
this doesn’t solve actually tagging content, but it some progress at least.
ah i was misreading your comment, i thought you were talking about the sending side. for the receiving side i agree, but the reason for the duplicate activities is yet to be found: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/4609
records can’t be duplicated in the database, the activity id is a unique key:
lemmy=# \d sent_activity
Table "public.sent_activity"
Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default
-----------------------------+--------------------------+-----------+----------+-------------------------------------------
id | bigint | | not null | nextval('sent_activity_id_seq'::regclass)
ap_id | text | | not null |
data | json | | not null |
sensitive | boolean | | not null |
published | timestamp with time zone | | not null | now()
send_inboxes | text[] | | not null |
send_community_followers_of | integer | | |
send_all_instances | boolean | | not null |
actor_type | actor_type_enum | | not null |
actor_apub_id | text | | |
Indexes:
"sent_activity_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (id)
"sent_activity_ap_id_key" UNIQUE CONSTRAINT, btree (ap_id)
this is by design. actor ids (unique identifier for accounts) should not be reused due to undefined behavior for how other instances will deal with that.
if you want to have a more technical explanation, https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/reuse-of-identity-channel-addresses-revocation-reissue-of-keys/2888 does a decent job at explaining some of the issues with this.