She has a real good example of how algorithms on platforms like Instagram not only try to make you addicted but also divide us even more
-
mekka okereke :verified:replied to DDRitter ๐ณ๏ธโ๐๐๏ธ๐ต๐ธ on last edited by
Yes I'm very sure. It's much easier to abuse Black people here on the Fediverse.
-
DDRitter ๐ณ๏ธโ๐๐๏ธ๐ต๐ธreplied to mekka okereke :verified: on last edited by
@mekkaokereke Ouch. Sorry to hear that. I thought that mastodon was better than the other social sites because here you can choose an instance that provides some protection via blocking or filtering.
If you have info about how and why Mastodon is worse than Xitter I would appreciate it.
Thanks.
-
mekka okereke :verified:replied to DDRitter ๐ณ๏ธโ๐๐๏ธ๐ต๐ธ on last edited by
Twitter:
*I make a post at 9am and go about my day
*A racist replies with racial slurs at 9:15am
*Everyone sees the racist replies
*Everyone reports the racist replies
*Twitter mods take it down by 10am
*I check Twitter again at 11am, and never even see the racism!Masto:
*I post at 9am
*Racists reply in such a way that only me, them and their followers, see the racism
*So no one reports it
*Everyone gaslights me with "I don't see racism here!"mekka okereke :verified: (@[email protected])
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] From your screenshot above, and the scenario I listed below, imagine if: 1) the racist user is on "Nazis dot social." They have 5000 followers. 2) the Black user is on "Good people dot social" 3) the nazi replies "Followers only." The scenario: https://hachyderm.io/@mekkaokereke/111010421955145872 None of the good people would see the gore images, or the subsequent pile-on.
Hachyderm.io (hachyderm.io)
-
myrmepropagandistreplied to mekka okereke :verified: on last edited by
Follower's only replies totally have this potential for abuse. And I can see the argument for addressing them given that one of the major reasons quote tweets don't exist is "potential for abuse" (much to my annoyance if I'm honest)
There is precedent for making such decisions based on potential for abuse... that's my main point here.
Having one but not the other is ... interesting.
-
Piers Cawleyreplied to myrmepropagandist on last edited by
@futurebird @mekkaokereke @ddritter I confess, I'm at a loss to think of non-abusive uses of followers only replies.
Followers only posts, sure, but replies? Nothing but an abuse vector.
-
myrmepropagandistreplied to Piers Cawley on last edited by
@pdcawley @mekkaokereke @ddritter
I can think of non-abusive uses for it. For example if I wanted to share a news story about US pol, but the story isn't CW'd and I've been trying to be consistent about zipping most of that content since I feel bad for internationals and the post volume is grotesque.
So I could write a reply, cw my reply and use it to share a call to action or something?
However, it also has *more* abuse potential that quote tweets IMO.
-
Piers Cawleyreplied to myrmepropagandist on last edited by
@futurebird @mekkaokereke @ddritter I'm not sure I understand what a followers only reply achieves over and above you adding a cw.
Doesn't a public reply plus a self-boost achieve the same result?
-
myrmepropagandistreplied to Piers Cawley on last edited by
@pdcawley @mekkaokereke @ddritter
That would reach a wider group of people.
-
Piers Cawleyreplied to myrmepropagandist on last edited by
@futurebird @mekkaokereke @ddritter
I recognise that I'm probably just another privileged asshole at this point, but is that a bad thing? Especially when eliminating 'followers only' replies (or its current behaviour) genuinely seems to eliminate a very nasty form of abusive posting?
Me, I'd make followers only replies work similarly to the way mentions only toots do โ make them visible to the followers of everyone mentioned in the toot, but only push them to the replier's followers.
-
myrmepropagandistreplied to Piers Cawley on last edited by
@pdcawley @mekkaokereke @ddritter
I think eliminating it could be a valid move. Especially since we don't have quote tweets for a similar reason.
Likewise I could see having *both* implemented. Having one but not the other is what makes no sense to me.
-
Piers Cawleyreplied to myrmepropagandist on last edited by
@futurebird @mekkaokereke @ddritter having non DM type replies invisible to a victim's followers, and un-boostable or QT-able to boot is just too fucked up for words.
Butโฆ here we are, in the land of unverifiable screenshots.
-
myrmepropagandistreplied to Piers Cawley on last edited by
@pdcawley @mekkaokereke @ddritter
I HATE unboostable replies. It always feels like someone grabbed me and pulled me into a dark ally to "talk"
Especially since if I respond I might not be able to boost my own reply to them without stripping stuff out of the post and maybe breaking the thread.
I don't get why people do it? I tend to mute without comment anyone who seems like a bad actor which works well. So I'm not suffering much, but I've seen this hurt other people.
-
Erin ๐ฝโจreplied to myrmepropagandist on last edited by
@futurebird @pdcawley @mekkaokereke @ddritter Iโve used DM replies to add something to a conversation I donโt want to be public. Iโve rarely seen a good use of Followers-only replies though.
But its important to understand that โvisibility settingsโ arenโt in the protocol - Public is
to: [as:Public, yourUserAccount/followers, everyone, mentioned]
; followers only isto: [yourUserAccount/Followers, everyone, mentioned]
; DM isto: [everyone, mentioned]
โVisibility Settingsโ and the in-post addressing is an elaborate fiction Mastodon imposed on top of a more flexible protocol