Screenshot of BlueSky post showing the power of composable moderation.
-
@mastodonmigration @mekkaokereke
I mean *I* don’t. I’ll sometimes use it if I want to post about something that I don’t want to share with people that I haven’t interacted with.
-
@Bam @mastodonmigration @mekkaokereke Some people that I follow use followers only, probably because it makes it harder to scrape. Also, because there are no reply controls I guess? It's the only way to restrict who can reply.
-
@Bam @mastodonmigration @mekkaokereke Sometimes if something upsetting happens in my off-line life (usually an argument with a family member) and I want to share with people but don't want it to go very far I use it. Feels more like I don't have too many people commenting on an situation who haven't ever interacted with me before. I can see how it's a potential abuse vector, but it does get used by people in other ways. I'd obviously live without it if getting rid of it would make this place safer for more people though.
-
Only the very abusive ones. Bluesky's platform moderation tends to at best label racism and trasphobia, and will rarely ban anything but the most egregious stuff. So, it's a very different approach from some of the better-moderated instances here. But, the composable moderation approach could also also be a thing with better platform moderation.
@[email protected] @[email protected] -
The general concept of followers-only replies is useful, the specific Mastodon implementation is very badly flawed. A different implementation might well be less susceptible to this abuse vector.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] -
@jdp23 @mastodonmigration @mekkaokereke @Bam @SRLevine
To me it makes intuitive sense to post things I don't want boosted on that setting (I haven't put effort into vetting who follows me, but I still can use it to speak a little more quietly & controlled-ly there, and that's when I use)
*To abusers* it makes intuitive sense to use it for abusive behavior. *I* would never have thought of this use in a million years if it hadn't been pointed out, but *they* figure it out very fast
-
@inquiline @jdp23 @mastodonmigration @mekkaokereke @Bam @SRLevine
Yeah. I use it to avoid abuse or stalking
Never occurred to me that it could also be used for the opposite, in other contexts
-
Yep. That’s why it’s so crucial for developers to work with people who are targets of harassment and listen to their perspectives. There’s a great (now-deleted) tweet from LeslieMac after Twitter released some functionality that was such a bad abuse vector that they immediately rolled it back about hour about how Twitter could have avoided the fiasco if they had just hired and paid 10 Black women with big followings.
@[email protected] @[email protected]
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] -
Fair question!
White folk generally don't listen to Black people about their experiences. And when they do listen, they often don't believe. And when they do listen and believe, they often assume that them thinking about it for 5 or 10 minutes will yield a better solution than proposals from people that have been thinking about it for 5 or 10 years.
And in terms of queer... Mastodon never worked great for queer people in general. Because it never worked great for Black queer people.
️ -
mekka okereke :verified:replied to mekka okereke :verified: last edited by
Queer people on Mastodon don't even notice the severe lack of Black queer people. It's very weird.
-
@mastodonmigration @Bam @mekkaokereke @elduvelle “followers only” is privacy preserving in that your posts are not public, which has important legal implications under GDPR. If they constitute personal data (as is likely) they cannot be scraped, collected, stored, (eg to train an AI system) except with very specific Art 9 exemptions.
That they are a vector for abuse is horrific, and desperately needs fixing, but a lack of data privacy generates algorithmic harms too.
-
@mastodonmigration @Bam @mekkaokereke I became aware of this problem through Mekka's posts, and then noticed a few very polemic dudes using it on me in political "discussions". Had to screenshot their replies and post them myself. They claimed they didn't know what they were doing. I can't imagine how it must feel when people use this frequently on you with clear abusive goals. I completely understand that this renders mastodon an unfriendly place.
-
@mastodonmigration @Bam @mekkaokereke Some people prefer to keep their posts to a closed group of people instead of publishing everything for the world to see. This could be because they don't want their employer to see what they write online, or because they're from a vulnerable group that's at risk of receiving harassment online, or because they don't want their thoughts to be recorded on the internet forever. It's a fairly popular method of posting on Mastodon.
-
@janhelms @mastodonmigration @Bam @mekkaokereke just curious - is this a setting you explicitly set on each post, or is it possible people have their accounts set to “followers only” and then reply to someone, thus making a followers-only reply?
I could easily see myself falling into the latter category, if that’s how it works. Not that I try to harass anyone - life is too short to waste my own time trying to bring unhappiness into the world. We’ve got enough of that already anyway.
-
Mastodon Migrationreplied to Eugen Rochko last edited by [email protected]
This makes sense, and several replies in this thread are from people who clarify that they use this mode for the purposes you describe. As others note this mode is also used as a means to harass people while remaining hidden from public view. So, both things seem true. A lot of the discussion centers around how to preserve the positive uses, while addressing the potential for abusive uses of the mode.
-
@jdp23 do you have examples of what could be done to limit abuse from followers-only replies?
I did not know it was used for harassment, though it now seems obvious in hindsight, but I know many who use them legitimately and would be curious to know whether/how the potential for harm could be mitigated.
@mastodonmigration @mekkaokereke @Bam @SRLevine -
Mastodon Migrationreplied to Mastodon Migration last edited by
Interesting reply post on the subject in this thread by @UlrikeHahn discussing the important GDPR privacy preserving features of this mode, as well as the need to address potential issues.
Ulrike Hahn (@[email protected])
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] “followers only” is privacy preserving in that your posts are not public, which has important legal implications under GDPR. If they constitute personal data (as is likely) they cannot be scraped, collected, stored, (eg to train an AI system) except with very specific Art 9 exemptions. That they are a vector for abuse is horrific, and desperately needs fixing, but a lack of data privacy generates algorithmic harms too.
FediScience.org (fediscience.org)
-
@mastodonmigration
Surely, there is no positive interaction happening if I reply to you in a way that you cannot reply to me.I don't know the technical aspects of it, but as a user, I would wish replies to always have symmetrical rights.
-
Dave "Wear A Goddamn Mask" Cochran :donor:replied to Mathaetaes last edited by
@mathaetaes @janhelms @mastodonmigration @Bam @mekkaokereke i just sent an example "followers-only" reply. Did you see it?
-
Mastodon Migrationreplied to Dave "Wear A Goddamn Mask" Cochran :donor: last edited by [email protected]
@dave_cochran @mathaetaes @janhelms @Bam @mekkaokereke
Answered your followers only reply:
"This account sees it. This account does not follow you, but is @ mentioned. It seems like this is the issue with the mode. You can @ mention a target, but the only other accounts that can see your post are your followers."
