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 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/
-
Jenniferplusplusreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
Public speech is always a heightened level of performance.
But I would engage in a lot more nuance, seeking common ground, and candor if I could better choose who could see it.
That is what we're all missing out on. I don't get to be that person on here, neither do you, and none of us gets to have those versions of people in our lives.
6/
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
> it's even more baffling that no major implementation has actually taken advantage of that
i blame sharedInbox. its mere existence seems to constrain people's imaginations on what is possible... they don't realize it was designed only for Public activities. using it for anything else means that you are giving control to the remote server to decide who can see it (which is a Very Bad Idea). what we need is a mechanism that lets you explicitly declare which inboxes to deliver
-
Jenniferplusplusreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
This is all to say nothing of how we're so unable to establish and hold boundaries with each other. That's closely related, but I think very worthy of it's own thread.
But that's probably a topic for another day.
7/7
-
@jenniferplusplus This is such a great thread. I've had this feeling myself, but have never been able to put it into words the way you did. Thank you!
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
@jenniferplusplus @dahukanna @helge this is exactly how i view `context` and it's why i wrote https://w3id.org/fep/7888 -- to enable exactly this kind of representation of a "conversation". A owns the collection, A gets to Add posts into it. B, C, D can fetch by id, but M who is blocked will fail whatever access control mechanism you're using.
-
Jenniferplusplusreplied to infinite love ⴳ last edited by
@trwnh I actually don't hate Sharedinbox the way other people do. You were always going to depend on the way the recipient server distributes your messages. The SharedInbox is just honest about that, which allows the protocol to make a meaningful and critical performance optimization.
My position on that is generally that we have to trust our peers to act in good faith, and we shouldn't deal at all with peers we can't trust in that way.
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
@jenniferplusplus well, the remote server has no idea what any given collection contains. that's the real issue.
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to infinite love ⴳ last edited by
@jenniferplusplus like, it should be possible to silently remove a follower without notifying any remote servers and without leaving the remote server in a state where it will blindly continue to deliver your activities to the actor you remove silently.
-
Jenniferplusplusreplied to infinite love ⴳ last edited by
@trwnh I agree that the near impossibility of knowing the contents of a collection is the source of the problem. But saying you should be able to update the collection, not inform anyone, and have them act in accordance with the update seems like magical thinking.
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
@jenniferplusplus if there were a multibox endpoint where i could explicitly say "deliver this activity to inboxes B,C,D only", then the remote server doesn't have to know the contents of the collection. It could at most guess what the local subset is, sure.
-
Jenniferplusplusreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
@trwnh I would instead suggest that we need a way to distinguish between inboxes that are self administered vs administered by a third party. For a lot of reasons. Sending a block or flag or removing a follower is a different dynamic depending on whether it's going straight to the subject's inbox, or will be processed by some 3rd on their behalf. You can trust 2nd parties not to be indifferent, but 3rd parties usually are.
-
Jenniferplusplusreplied to Paul Cantrell last edited by [email protected]
@inthehands @jalcine It may not surprise you to know that I was extremely into the notion of circles at the time. But I didn't know how to social media back then. And I wasn't very good at being a person, either. (those facts are related.) So it never came to anything.
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
@jenniferplusplus i'm toying with the following approaches re: this
a) declare an `endpoints.abuseReports` or similar for the express purpose of server-wide abuse communications or other activities that aren't meant to be seen by the actor you are reporting/blocking/etc
b) formalize servers as actors with their own inboxes and use these inboxes for all manner of "system messages". this would in effect work like xmpp, except xmpp goes even further and sends *all* messages to a server directly.
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to infinite love ⴳ last edited by
@jenniferplusplus in any case it would probably be a good idea to take a hard look at the exact nature of the relationship between any given actor and their server. there ought to be a way to signal that an actor is being "managed" by some server, where the server is doing more than simply hosting their inbox and outbox and doing deliveries.
-
Paul Cantrellreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
@jenniferplusplus @jalcine
Still working at both (the social media and the being a person). Mostly the second. It’s…a whole thing!