If Alice makes a followers-only post, and Bob replies to it, to whom should Bob's reply be visible?
-
@evan ToAlice, but visible to followers of both.
-
@evan Carol and Ted clearly need to be looped in
-
@maj Dawn's and my answer would be all of Alice's followers. I don't like the intersection answer, because it gets smaller and smaller over time. I think Alice's intent is to have her friends and family have a conversation, like it works on Instagram and Facebook.
-
@jmcclure you're forgiven!
The poll is not mandatory, so please feel free to spend your one wild and precious life doing something different.
Huh?
I'm sorry I encroached on your poll without your invitation. I saw it, it looked interesting, so I submitted my vote and explained my "other" as requested.
If you didn't want to hear people's thoughts, don't ask for them.
-
@evan You asked "should", not "does", so my answer is "only people who follow *both* Alice and Bob", that is, the intersection of both sets of followers. (Your 3rd option, to me, reads like "people who follow *either*", that is, the union.)
Whether Alice-only follower Carol (resp. Bob-only follower Dave) should gain access to Bob's reply by following Bob (resp. Alice) after Bob's reply is unclear to me.
-
@maj does this help?
Dawn Ahukanna (@dahukanna@mastodon.social)
Attached: 1 image @evan@cosocial.ca It should be visible to the original set as Alice shared the post with her followers, not followers of followers (light blue segment of set diagram). Any of Bob’s followers that also follow Alice will see the post and replies anyway. See comments on set diagram and post about the set theory maths/model - https://mastodon.social/@dahukanna/116030140984675453
Mastodon (mastodon.social)
-
-
@evan You asked "should", not "does", so my answer is "only people who follow *both* Alice and Bob", that is, the intersection of both sets of followers. (Your 3rd option, to me, reads like "people who follow *either*", that is, the union.)
Whether Alice-only follower Carol (resp. Bob-only follower Dave) should gain access to Bob's reply by following Bob (resp. Alice) after Bob's reply is unclear to me.
@pauamma so, the audience for replies gets smaller and smaller as the conversation grows?
-
Intersection of Alice and Bob's followers.
-
Intersection of Alice and Bob's followers.
@bjb so a smaller and smaller audience as the conversation goes on? Eventually too small to keep the conversation up?
-
@bjb so a smaller and smaller audience as the conversation goes on? Eventually too small to keep the conversation up?
Yep. If there are people that Bob's not interested in, Bob should not have to deal with them.
-
@evan What about Ted and Carol's followers?
-
@evan
Please help me, my friend, I desperately need you
-
@pauamma so, the audience for replies gets smaller and smaller as the conversation grows?
@evan Good question. I'd have to think about it more, but my hot take is "it depends a lot on context". (Consider for instance that Bob may be Alice's stalkery ex.)
-
Hey, all. So, I appreciate the responses. I'll break down the options here.
-
Hey, all. So, I appreciate the responses. I'll break down the options here.
"Alice's followers" is the way most social networks work with private X, Facebook, Instagram. It lets Alice ask questions or share private info with people she trusts and cares about, and lets them discuss amongst themselves. It is really the best way to use social networks.
-
@evan Sure!
Does this wording make sense?
When you post a followers-only post, who do you expect replies from?
My own followers (MOF)
MOF + repliers' followers (RF)
Mutual MOF + RF only
Something else?(Trying to be concise!)
@evan Well I went ahead, if you're interested:
Stefan Bohacek (@stefan@stefanbohacek.online)
Hey fediverse, quick question for you. Generally speaking, when you post a followers-only post, who do you expect to see replies from? #fediverse #poll #FollowersOnly #boundaries [ ] My own followers (MOF) [ ] MOF + repliers' followers (RF) [ ] Mutual MOF + RF only [ ] Something else?
Stefan's Personal Mastodon Server (stefanbohacek.online)
-
"Alice's followers" is the way most social networks work with private X, Facebook, Instagram. It lets Alice ask questions or share private info with people she trusts and cares about, and lets them discuss amongst themselves. It is really the best way to use social networks.
"Bob's followers" is the literalist version, with the worst possible dynamics. "You should reply to a followers-only post with a followers-only post" retains the same UI choice while completely changing the audience. Most of the other people who read Alice's post won't see Bob's comments. Bob's followers who don't follow Alice won't understand the context of his post, and won't be able to read Alice's post. It also violates Alice's privacy to share a response to her question with strangers.
-
"Bob's followers" is the literalist version, with the worst possible dynamics. "You should reply to a followers-only post with a followers-only post" retains the same UI choice while completely changing the audience. Most of the other people who read Alice's post won't see Bob's comments. Bob's followers who don't follow Alice won't understand the context of his post, and won't be able to read Alice's post. It also violates Alice's privacy to share a response to her question with strangers.
@evan That's it course. But is it also the case for Mastodon? I'd guess it is.
-
"Bob's followers" is the literalist version, with the worst possible dynamics. "You should reply to a followers-only post with a followers-only post" retains the same UI choice while completely changing the audience. Most of the other people who read Alice's post won't see Bob's comments. Bob's followers who don't follow Alice won't understand the context of his post, and won't be able to read Alice's post. It also violates Alice's privacy to share a response to her question with strangers.
"Both" at least makes the full conversation visible to all A's followers, but it has most of the same problems as sharing with B's followers. It sends them a part of a conversation without context, but also violates A's privacy.
