I think it makes a big difference that the topic "acts" like a regular "user" account but is stewarded by potentially many users. Why don't you just name this "channels"?
@Dragan_Espenschied @Tropic_the_Topic it is like a collection of things that belong together, like "channels" where only users with specific permissions can add / moderate stuff.
Being the topic an AP actor, other users can follow and receive notification each time something get published (and automatically re-boosted by the topic)
I think it makes a big difference that the topic "acts" like a regular "user" account but is stewarded by potentially many users. Why don't you just name this "channels"?
Probably because, differently from channels, our topics include the possibility to be grouped in a taxonomy tree, so that eg: the "All about veganism" topic can be a children of "nutrition" and parent of "tofu recipes" topics (Nd such taxonomy is also federated, so the tree can span different instances as well once we get it)
Interesting! So it is like usenet newgroups a bit.I understand "channel" has a one-to-many connotation that you probably want to avoid. But isn't this like "groups" then?How would the hierarchy be formed?
This is a bonfire demo instance for testing purposes
Manual federation enabled