@jdp23 you had mentioned wanting to attend my FediForum session on handling replies with limited visibility on day 2; since you didn't get a chance to attend, I was curious what your main interests or concerns on the topic were and whether they overlap...
-
@jdp23 you had mentioned wanting to attend my FediForum session on handling replies with limited visibility on day 2; since you didn't get a chance to attend, I was curious what your main interests or concerns on the topic were and whether they overlap with that I'm trying to do with frequency
-
@[email protected] Hi Jesse, thanks for following up ... in general I think that approaches that *aren't* fully-visibility play to the fediverse's strengths, so yes that overlaps with what you're trying to do with frequency! Specifically on that session, I was wondering if there was discussion of how followers-only posts are used as a harassment vector on Mastodon, and what (if anything) to do about it. It's an attack that's less likely to come up and is easier to mitigate in a pure followers-only network: the attacker replying to a public/unlisted post with a followers-only post to bring in the attacker's followers, with nobody else knowing so intervention is harder.
-
@jdp23 oh yeah, that’s a gnarly use case. We did not discuss that; the session focused on ghost replies and how to mitigate those since it gets a little wonky when someone makes a followers-only reply to another followers-only post and the audiences don’t overlap. We talked in the session and afterward about https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/7888/fep-7888.md.
-
@jdp23 I think if a server implemented that fep, they could reject any add activities that didn’t address the same audience as the original post. You couldn’t stop someone from still making a post that has the in-reply-to set to your post, but it wouldn’t be considered part of the conversation like all replies are now