I'm so tired of reading takes on moderation that begin and end with "decide what content I see". That's not even half the question.
-
Jenniferplusplusreplied to Jennifer Moore đˇ last edited by
I never used live journal, actually
-
@helge @jenniferplusplus
Current mental model for conversation thread: Alice posts to her followers-only and expects replies only from this set of people that intersects with Alice = (Alice â followers only), not to the followers of her followers=(Alice ⪠(each followerâs followers * infinity)).
Otherwise, what is the purpose and point of posting to followers only? It should be called âpost followers networkâ. -
@dahukanna
I'm going to suggest it's a strange requirement.In effect, you want a newsletter sent by email.
Which we all already have.
Indeed, many folks advertise their newsletters on Mastodon!
-
@iinavpov @helge @jenniferplusplus
I mentioned the Fediverse server set mathematics scope+logic for aggregating âfollower-onlyâ visibility conversation threads and this led you to suggest newsletter distributed by email?
Multi-threaded, multi-participant, asynchronous, topical conversation â regular frequency newsletter update.
-
@dahukanna
Sorry, but my mailer does that, and has for decades.Except, you also mean conversations between your followers below the starting point.
Which email threading can also do. But presumably people have forgotten because of web interfaces.
So my apologies, but I genuinely fail to see what use case is not covered by email.
Except for discovering you in the first place. Which absolutely email doesn't do.
-
Amelia Bellamy-Royds :progress:replied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
@jenniferplusplus PeerTube has a "channels" concept where one account can publish to multiple different channels, and people can subscribe to the channel instead of the account.
I'd love to see that standardized across ActivityPub software. I'd also love it if you could set some channels to require follow approval & others not. And if some channels could be shared by multiple user accounts.
-
@iinavpov @dahukanna @helge
You know what, you're right. You should go back to your email, the rest of us will just be wrong together, on here. -
Jenniferplusplusreplied to Dawn Ahukanna last edited by
@dahukanna @helge
Followers only works the way you're describing. The problem is the way it intersects with replies. It doesn't expand to include the OPs followers. In the simple case, that's annoying because it fragments the conversation. But it also feeds into abuse cases, where bad actors use it to isolate their targets.This is a solvable problem, but somehow the spec never considered it, and mastodon just refuses to do anything about it.
-
Dawn Ahukannareplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
So the visibility scope of a reply post to another post is determined by the person creating the reply, not the originating/root note of the conversation?
See actual and expected conversation graph follower-only post+replies visibility scope. -
Yes, that it is true. It also says so pretty clearly in the UI "Followers; only your followers".
I don't think think that the red reply happens very often. Mastodon doesn't show everything that arrives in the ActivityPub inbox in the home timeline. So there is a good chance that E would not see B's post, and not reply.h
The worse problem here is that if D does not follow B, they will not see B's post and possibly write the same thing.
-
@helge @jenniferplusplus
âWorse problem-if D doesnât follow B, D wonât see B's post & possibly write the same thingâ: so thatâs the source of not seeing replies to posts!
If post0(start of a conversation graph) has replies(nodes) then post0 creator & followers should see all replies unless exclusion rules apply to any nodes(posts & replies) by specific account (person) e.g.
- temporarily mute.
- permanently mute (block) & deny access to my nodes(posts & replies).
Use graph theory & sets maths. -
Jenniferplusplusreplied to Dawn Ahukanna last edited by
@dahukanna @helge
Preferably, post0 would define a collection that is the set of all posts in the conversation. Then B, C, and D would request to add their posts to that collection, which would have the same visibility as post0. Everyone could fetch that collection, and everyone could have the same view of the conversation as person A. So no missing replies, no hidden abuse, no weird fragments of conversation that can't connect back to a root. -
Jenniferplusplusreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
@dahukanna @helge
That adds some complication around enforcing blocks, but it's mostly solved by only putting links to posts in that container. The rest is solved if peer servers can work in good faith to enforce each others blocks. (Which i think is fine. Just don't federated at all with bad faith peers.) -
Jenniferplusplusreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
One further thought. When I say something like control who has access to me, or control who I'm talking to, that has a lot of important implications. Obviously, safety and privacy, sure. That's a critical, necessary element. But somehow some people don't give a shit about either one? Those people should still want this for themselves.
1/
-
Paul Cantrellreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
@jenniferplusplus @jalcine
I feel like the first iteration of Google+ really made a crack at solving this problem, andâŚnobody cared. For all the things that made no sense whatsoever about that weird project, its notions of âcirclesâ (as it was called, iirc) looks decent in hindsight. -
Jenniferplusplusreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
Controlling who you're talking to means knowing who you're talking to. It's a foundational prerequisite, because it allows you to know who you're not talking to. You would talk differently to your boss, your neighbor, and your spouse. Even about the same topic. You tailor your presentation to your audience. But that's literally impossible if your audience is any random person on the Internet who happened to get a link to a post.
2/
-
Jenniferplusplusreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by [email protected]
That knowledge of who your audience is allows you to control how you engage. It lets you choose how present you are. How guarded you are. And it gives you context. Your communication can be easier and richer, because it rests on a known history of shared experience. Or lack of experience. You know whether or not you need to stop and explain something. You can anticipate whether something will be received with humor.
Without that, we have to revert to a sort of perpetual first impression.
3/
-
Jenniferplusplusreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
That perpetual first impression suuucks. It's so much work. You have to be so alert; so guarded; so careful of your performance. Especially on social media, where the audience for any misunderstanding can blow up to completely inhuman numbers without warning.
4/
-
damonreplied to Amelia Bellamy-Royds :progress: last edited by
@AmeliasBrain @jenniferplusplus Hubzilla also has channels
-
Jenniferplusplusreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
To illustrate my point, consider myself. If you only know me from my internet takes, it may surprise you to learn that I'm actually a very quiet, pragmatic, and understanding person in real life.
On the internet, especially social media, I think I come across as kind of bombastic, prickly, and absolutist. There's a lot of reasons for that, but one is that I'm trying to influence who sticks around to listen. I'm signaling, loudly, who should and shouldn't stick around.
5/