benpate@mastodon.social you may want a way to gain consent before allowing posting of a location + mentioned people. The other thing you may want to do is have moderation UI that allows searching for all notes for a specific location, and potentially banning the usage of certain locations in notes. i.e., if you see a doxing, then your mods can prevent that location from being tagged, and delete the note. If a person is tagged as at a certain location, they should need to accept the tag before that shows up in the Note.

You could also do things like limit posts being added within a certain region to a certain radius (based on geoip).

tom@tomkahe.com said in I'm excited to show off #Atlas - a social mapping server for the #Fediverse.:
> Somewhat relevant, I believe mastodon's argument for not supporting age verification is that they don't collect location data and so there's no way for them to determine if their users are somewhere where age verification applies. I don't know how well that works on legal grounds, but probably worth thinking about if you're building social apps that require geolocation

Yeah, this justification just doesn't pass scrutiny. Mastodon does collect the user's recently active IP addresses, and from that you can use geoip to resolve to a country/state. This could also all be handled by a FASP.

In other words, Mastodon could indeed implement age verification, the only remaining question is: what would that gate access to?

@thisismissem

Agreed, even if they didn't collect/save IP addresses, I don't think you could get around it just by telling a court you didn't want to collect that data. I imagine they'd just tell you that you need to collect it.

(looked up the source so I'm not just randomly attempting to quote things from memory https://techcrunch.com/2025/08/29/mastodon-says-it-doesnt-have-the-means-to-comply-with-age-verification-laws/)

The social nonprofit explains that Mastodon doesn’t track its users, which makes it difficult to enforce such legislation. Nor does it want to use IP address-based blocks, as those would unfairly impact people who were traveling, it says.

@thisismissem @benpate i was also thinking how this is solved by the foursquares etc., aside from moderation. limiting notes to pois instead of arbitrary latitude-longitude-tuples may also be a viable strategy, and that might make it easier to figure out whom to even ask for consent, or who may be able to manage allowlists or similar mechanisms. not arguing to replicate that exactly, but remember foursquare mayors? the fediverse might have elected janitor groups.

i'm aware that i'm sharing half-finished thoughts, and i hope i'll find a bit more time for this.

@computersandblues @thisismissem

Half finished thoughts are the best!

And, I know I'm dipping into some choppy waters here, but I think "consent" relates to what content the server wants to share, and not consent of the "property/location owner."

I recognize there's potential for abuse (i.e. doxxing someone) but that exists outside of a mapping app, too.

But there's also cool use cases for non-consensual digital graffiti.. something in the spirit of:

Indigenous Artists Use AR to Rewrite the Narrative in the Met’s American Wing

Amplifier’s ENCODED is not intended as a protest but as a precise act of cultural negotiation that reclaims erased histories.

Observer (observer.com)

@computersandblues @thisismissem

But back to your original point, it could be interesting to roll up all of the notes about a particular POI, to say something meaningful about what's going on there.

That's probably out of scope for me right now, while I'm just learning how to make maps. But I'm making a note to research this some time down the road.

Fortunately, we have a lot of "closed source" research that we can lean on, then just cherry pick the best ideas and make them "open."

benpate@mastodon.social there's multiple levels of consent. If you create a post with me mentioned in it with my location, I should probably have to accept that post for me to be mentioned in it. Otherwise someone can see me out and about, and create a post without me knowing that gives other people my location.

Hence, to tag other people at a location, they should have to accept that tag:

• Allow anyone to tag me at locations (potentially unsafe)
• Allow my followers to tag me at locations
• Allow my following to tag me at locations
• Allow this specific collection of Actors to tag me at locations
• Don't allow anyone to tag me at locations.

This could be achieved through an interaction policy on the Actor (though that's not yet a thing? I think interaction policies in GTS are only on Notes/objects)

@benpate @yala
Great idea ! My first reaction is : why not integrate it in @mobilizon ? That should be useful at the same time for their normal calendar of events and for conversations about discoveries on their system.

This should integrate WITH @mobilizon very nicely. I'll need to verify, but Emissary should be able to index events in Mobilizon easily - if the server owner chooses. I think this is probably what you mean?

On a technology level, this uses a completely different technology and language that can't just be written into an existing app like Mobilizon.

Fortunately, the PROTOCOL matters, not the LANGUAGE, so we should be able to work together over ActivityPub.

@nelfan @yala @mobilizon

@thisismissem Yes, you're raising some important points that we should cover. And, it's easy to see the potential for someone to post harmful content on a map.

But I don't see it being any different from posting harmful content in any other medium they have. Witness the dude live tweeting celebrity plane locations.

Fundamentally, people *should* be able to talk about others behind their backs. Maps or not, if they post data they shouldn't, then it's probably an issue for server mods, yes?

@thisismissem

I read up on Interaction Policies. They're a great idea, but it looks like these are requests that only work if other servers enforce them.

I'm suspicious of things like this that can't be enforced beyond my own server because (as we've seen too many times) only the good guys will follow the rules, leaving the bad guys with an unfair advantage.