I know this is already on Mastodon team's radar, but I do want to stress how important this feature is.
-
I know this is already on Mastodon team's radar, but I do want to stress how important this feature is.
Enable Twitter-style Reply Controls on a Per-Toot Basis 路 Issue #14762 路 mastodon/mastodon
Pitch Twitter's reply model has been extended with some LJ-like features. Replies to a tweet can now be restricted to: Replies only from accounts @-mentioned in the tweet Replies only from accounts followed by the sender of the tweet and...
GitHub (github.com)
We won't get rid of the racism and the mansplaining on the fediverse overnight, but giving people control over their replies would significantly improve everyone's experience, and make this place a lot more inviting.
@stefan@stefanbohacek.online Just thinking out loud here without overly much afterthought and still stuffed on xmas/holiday food but: wouldn't it be more in the spirit of things in the Fediverse to be able to control who can READ your posts? I'm talking about plonking your followers in to groups (of your liking..."friends", "roleplayers", "metalheads", "idiots" etc). Much like Google+ did and also to a degree what Facebook does (or allows you to do...I don't think many people are aware of it) and, by all means, Friendica does. Then you can select who you post what to.
But if there was kind of granular control over who could read your posts, it would also be assumed everyone who can read it can reply to it.
Absolutely not easier to do, I'd say about as impossible to do even, but if we're dreaming...but it would be more fair and it would, IMHO, make sense.
If we only control who can reply to otherwise public posts we could end up getting people broadcasting (as opposed to discussing), no?
As I say, I haven't formulated this in a while in my head even as I've kept out of Fediverse/ActivityPub functionality discussions these last few years, but it kind of make more sense in my head.
Anyways, just a thought as I did a drive-by reading of that github pitch. -
@stefan@stefanbohacek.online Just thinking out loud here without overly much afterthought and still stuffed on xmas/holiday food but: wouldn't it be more in the spirit of things in the Fediverse to be able to control who can READ your posts? I'm talking about plonking your followers in to groups (of your liking..."friends", "roleplayers", "metalheads", "idiots" etc). Much like Google+ did and also to a degree what Facebook does (or allows you to do...I don't think many people are aware of it) and, by all means, Friendica does. Then you can select who you post what to.
But if there was kind of granular control over who could read your posts, it would also be assumed everyone who can read it can reply to it.
Absolutely not easier to do, I'd say about as impossible to do even, but if we're dreaming...but it would be more fair and it would, IMHO, make sense.
If we only control who can reply to otherwise public posts we could end up getting people broadcasting (as opposed to discussing), no?
As I say, I haven't formulated this in a while in my head even as I've kept out of Fediverse/ActivityPub functionality discussions these last few years, but it kind of make more sense in my head.
Anyways, just a thought as I did a drive-by reading of that github pitch.@mathias I love Google+'s concept of Circles and definitely hope we'll see that implemented in the fediverse!
Here's what I said, though, about having to choose between wider audience and safety: https://stefanbohacek.online/@stefan/115840476056722953
RE: "If we only control who can reply to otherwise public posts we could end up getting people broadcasting (as opposed to discussing), no?"
You can always ignore people who use social media this way, or report them if they're spreading misinformation.
I don't have comments enabled on my blog. I don't owe anyone an audience, and I don't want to do comment moderation for free.
-
@graue I've seen it come up in a few conversations, but it seems like things are a bit stuck waiting for goToSocial to write an FEP, from what I can tell?
Stefan Bohacek (@stefan@stefanbohacek.online)
Any #GoToSocial developers, or anyone else who might know what the hold-up with publishing the FEP for reply controls is, interested in chiming in? https://stefanbohacek.online/@stefan/115316306587338554 #fediverse #FEP #fedidevs #ReplyControls
Stefan's Personal Mastodon Server (stefanbohacek.online)
@stefan The Mastodon team has far more resources than GTS (which is still in beta), and a greater deployed base by several orders of magnitude, so while it's nice that they want to do it in a compatible way with GTS' implementation, it seems weird that they'd let that indefinitely block them...
-
I know this is already on Mastodon team's radar, but I do want to stress how important this feature is.
Enable Twitter-style Reply Controls on a Per-Toot Basis 路 Issue #14762 路 mastodon/mastodon
Pitch Twitter's reply model has been extended with some LJ-like features. Replies to a tweet can now be restricted to: Replies only from accounts @-mentioned in the tweet Replies only from accounts followed by the sender of the tweet and...
GitHub (github.com)
We won't get rid of the racism and the mansplaining on the fediverse overnight, but giving people control over their replies would significantly improve everyone's experience, and make this place a lot more inviting.
@stefan@stefanbohacek.online this seems to steer completely in the opposite direction of W3C recommendations like Webmentions, where replies and reactions are basically HTTP POSTs on a Webmention URL that can be made by anyone on the Internet (not even necessarily on Mastodon).
-
@stefan@stefanbohacek.online this seems to steer completely in the opposite direction of W3C recommendations like Webmentions, where replies and reactions are basically HTTP POSTs on a Webmention URL that can be made by anyone on the Internet (not even necessarily on Mastodon).
@fabio Right, anyone can write a reply or send a reaction, but surely I am not obligated to display them on my own blog, should I ever decide to enable webmentions?
-
@mathias I love Google+'s concept of Circles and definitely hope we'll see that implemented in the fediverse!
Here's what I said, though, about having to choose between wider audience and safety: https://stefanbohacek.online/@stefan/115840476056722953
RE: "If we only control who can reply to otherwise public posts we could end up getting people broadcasting (as opposed to discussing), no?"
You can always ignore people who use social media this way, or report them if they're spreading misinformation.
I don't have comments enabled on my blog. I don't owe anyone an audience, and I don't want to do comment moderation for free.
@stefan@stefanbohacek.online
I hear you. But still, you are kind of enforcing the point I'm trying to make (but which I have yet to formulate in an elegant/clear way).
I think, for me, "social media" is more than just "media", which I would consider a blog, or even a news web site, to be. Like you I don't have comments enabled on any of my (too many) sites, where I can broadcast to my hearts content.
On Social Media though I think we are losing the "social" part if we normalize broadcasting but do not allow comments. Actually I think it is worse, and this is an area where Fediverse (which I love for the most part) too often try to instill the feeling of safety, but without actually being, or creating, any more actual safety (i.e. "blocking" mostly is "move out of sight, for me").
Anyways, interesting topics, and I would say we (in the Fediverse) has lots of areas for improvement challenges. -
@stefan@stefanbohacek.online
I hear you. But still, you are kind of enforcing the point I'm trying to make (but which I have yet to formulate in an elegant/clear way).
I think, for me, "social media" is more than just "media", which I would consider a blog, or even a news web site, to be. Like you I don't have comments enabled on any of my (too many) sites, where I can broadcast to my hearts content.
On Social Media though I think we are losing the "social" part if we normalize broadcasting but do not allow comments. Actually I think it is worse, and this is an area where Fediverse (which I love for the most part) too often try to instill the feeling of safety, but without actually being, or creating, any more actual safety (i.e. "blocking" mostly is "move out of sight, for me").
Anyways, interesting topics, and I would say we (in the Fediverse) has lots of areas for improvement challenges.@mathias I think the lines between social media, websites, blogs, etc, can get pretty blurry. What if you don't have comments enabled on your blog, but then you add the ActivityPub plugin? Shouldn't replies be then disabled as well?
If you don't like seeing accounts that only broadcast, or broadcast to a specific audience that you are not part of, you can ignore them.
If they spread misinformation, you can report them and block them.
Really don't see much of an issue to let people enjoy the (social) web the way they want.
-
@stefan The Mastodon team has far more resources than GTS (which is still in beta), and a greater deployed base by several orders of magnitude, so while it's nice that they want to do it in a compatible way with GTS' implementation, it seems weird that they'd let that indefinitely block them...
@graue Yeah, I've said this on a few occasions, but I wish they prioritized this over post quotes. But not my call to make, I suppose.
-
@mathias I think the lines between social media, websites, blogs, etc, can get pretty blurry. What if you don't have comments enabled on your blog, but then you add the ActivityPub plugin? Shouldn't replies be then disabled as well?
If you don't like seeing accounts that only broadcast, or broadcast to a specific audience that you are not part of, you can ignore them.
If they spread misinformation, you can report them and block them.
Really don't see much of an issue to let people enjoy the (social) web the way they want.
@mathias I guess the bottom line, for me is:
1. Limiting replies is the most thumbs-upped issue on Mastodon's GitHub: https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20sort%3Areactions-%2B1-desc
2. If the fediverse won't add tools that will empower people to feel safe here, the will continue to leave.
-
@mathias I think the lines between social media, websites, blogs, etc, can get pretty blurry. What if you don't have comments enabled on your blog, but then you add the ActivityPub plugin? Shouldn't replies be then disabled as well?
If you don't like seeing accounts that only broadcast, or broadcast to a specific audience that you are not part of, you can ignore them.
If they spread misinformation, you can report them and block them.
Really don't see much of an issue to let people enjoy the (social) web the way they want.
@stefan@stefanbohacek.online
Ah. And here-in lies the fundamental difference for me compared to what feels like most of the Fediverse:
I do not wish to (have to) "block things I don't like". Too many things in the Fediverse security discussions seem to be about limiting others, but never oneself.
For me this is about fostering, and creating, an environment that invites discussions between interested and/or like-minded, and how to enable that. For me this is isn't about blocking, reporting or otherwise hinder anyone else.
I say that with the full understanding that I will not, and can not, reach "everyone" and force what I have to say (which isn't that much these days) to their ears, without letting them reply or give their view/opinion about it.
My freedom will then be to publish to "everyone" (and risk that "anyone" or even "everyone" replies) OR to publish to those I think are interested, or at least don't dislike my posts (then they can unfollow me).
But knowing that if I post something to a select group of my followers in my book means I can feel confident in expressing myself without rubbing (too) many the wrong way. I see that as safety, which then makes me the odd-one-out here I guess.
So my fundamental difference is I wish to enable things, where most other wish to disable others options. Different routes to the same goal perhaps. I know that as it makes sense to me it is pretty certain to never happen because...[gestures vaguely towards the current state of the world in general].
-
@stefan@stefanbohacek.online
Ah. And here-in lies the fundamental difference for me compared to what feels like most of the Fediverse:
I do not wish to (have to) "block things I don't like". Too many things in the Fediverse security discussions seem to be about limiting others, but never oneself.
For me this is about fostering, and creating, an environment that invites discussions between interested and/or like-minded, and how to enable that. For me this is isn't about blocking, reporting or otherwise hinder anyone else.
I say that with the full understanding that I will not, and can not, reach "everyone" and force what I have to say (which isn't that much these days) to their ears, without letting them reply or give their view/opinion about it.
My freedom will then be to publish to "everyone" (and risk that "anyone" or even "everyone" replies) OR to publish to those I think are interested, or at least don't dislike my posts (then they can unfollow me).
But knowing that if I post something to a select group of my followers in my book means I can feel confident in expressing myself without rubbing (too) many the wrong way. I see that as safety, which then makes me the odd-one-out here I guess.
So my fundamental difference is I wish to enable things, where most other wish to disable others options. Different routes to the same goal perhaps. I know that as it makes sense to me it is pretty certain to never happen because...[gestures vaguely towards the current state of the world in general]."I do not wish to (have to) "block things I don't like"."
Yes, because we're two white dudes, nobody's going to harass us off this platform.
Highly recommend reading this:
5 things white people can do to start making the fediverse less toxic for Black people
Anti-Blackness is a long-term problem in the fediverse. Now's a good time to start changing that.
The Nexus Of Privacy (privacy.thenexus.today)
-
"I do not wish to (have to) "block things I don't like"."
Yes, because we're two white dudes, nobody's going to harass us off this platform.
Highly recommend reading this:
5 things white people can do to start making the fediverse less toxic for Black people
Anti-Blackness is a long-term problem in the fediverse. Now's a good time to start changing that.
The Nexus Of Privacy (privacy.thenexus.today)
@stefan@stefanbohacek.online
I read it when it was published, but I did re-read it again now just to see what point I was missing. I can't find it.
Just to be crystal clear: I do not mind people being able to limit comments on their posts. I just don't see it as the best way towards "social" OR (actual) security.
When I am suggesting being able to limit, or direct, who you post to, with pretty granular group control, on a post-by-post basis, that isn't said as a "so don't put in moderation tools or other functionality".
After that I have been having a philosophical discussion on if "stopping everyone else" or "enabling me and also everyone else more control" is the best/kindest route forward, and which would be the best mind-set for building a friendly social media community. -
Going back to this again:
"no technical means in software to prevent someone else鈥檚 computer server from hosting a URL pointing to your public post"
Right, anyone can publish a link to my post, but then, based on the reply settings, my server can reject those and not show them under my posts, and I won't get @ mentioned?
Seems like that should solve the problem for people who are now leaving for platforms that provide tools like this, in some cases even back to X/Twitter.
If I understand correctly, the way it's going to work is similar to quote posts, something along the lines of
1) the server hosting the account making the reply sends a request to the server of the account being replied to asking whether it's okay to reply
2) the server with the account being replied to says "ok" or "nope"
Obviously this only works with cooperative software ... but that's also true with stuff like DMs and followers-only posts, so it comes with the territory here. Compatibility with older Mastodon versions, and other platforms that haven't implemented reply controls yet (or do it in a different way) is likely to be challenging -- as it is for quote posts. It's all a lot trickier than it sounds!
BTW, there was a similar transition back in 2016/7 when Mastodon unilaterally unlisted and followers-only posts got implemented. It was quite rocky for a while, but over time things moved forward. Stuff like this is a real challenge with interpoperable software in general, and decentralization only makes things more complex, but the other alterantivve is stagnation -- which is a lot worse. This is badly-needed functionality so it's great that it's happening.
-
@stefan@stefanbohacek.online
I read it when it was published, but I did re-read it again now just to see what point I was missing. I can't find it.
Just to be crystal clear: I do not mind people being able to limit comments on their posts. I just don't see it as the best way towards "social" OR (actual) security.
When I am suggesting being able to limit, or direct, who you post to, with pretty granular group control, on a post-by-post basis, that isn't said as a "so don't put in moderation tools or other functionality".
After that I have been having a philosophical discussion on if "stopping everyone else" or "enabling me and also everyone else more control" is the best/kindest route forward, and which would be the best mind-set for building a friendly social media community.@mathias Well, I appreciate you taking the time to re-read the article, and I don't think I will push more on this, as we can't seem to agree.
To me, reply controls make sense. It is a feature that is widely requested. I guess we'll have to see which direction the fediverse will take.
-
@stefan @dec23k @USelaine It looks like it鈥檚 definitely still on their (the Bluesky team) radar. Here鈥檚 a post from Paul. Frazee talking about it (barely) less than a year ago.
On the other hand, that was a year ago.
Paul Frazee (@pfrazee.com)
Show edit history is important IMO for transparency For the likes & etc, the answer may be "just leave it," but the risk is the puppy problem as dholms calls it: somebody posts "I love puppies," you like & repost, then they edit it to "I hate puppies"
Bluesky Social (bsky.app)
-
I know this is already on Mastodon team's radar, but I do want to stress how important this feature is.
Enable Twitter-style Reply Controls on a Per-Toot Basis 路 Issue #14762 路 mastodon/mastodon
Pitch Twitter's reply model has been extended with some LJ-like features. Replies to a tweet can now be restricted to: Replies only from accounts @-mentioned in the tweet Replies only from accounts followed by the sender of the tweet and...
GitHub (github.com)
We won't get rid of the racism and the mansplaining on the fediverse overnight, but giving people control over their replies would significantly improve everyone's experience, and make this place a lot more inviting.
@stefan we already have reply controls. Every object has a `replies` collection that is managed by the author's server. If a) remote servers only use that collection for showing replies and b) the local server lets the user curate the collection, it just works.
-
@stefan @dec23k @USelaine It looks like it鈥檚 definitely still on their (the Bluesky team) radar. Here鈥檚 a post from Paul. Frazee talking about it (barely) less than a year ago.
On the other hand, that was a year ago.
Paul Frazee (@pfrazee.com)
Show edit history is important IMO for transparency For the likes & etc, the answer may be "just leave it," but the risk is the puppy problem as dholms calls it: somebody posts "I love puppies," you like & repost, then they edit it to "I hate puppies"
Bluesky Social (bsky.app)
-
@stefan we already have reply controls. Every object has a `replies` collection that is managed by the author's server. If a) remote servers only use that collection for showing replies and b) the local server lets the user curate the collection, it just works.
@evan Sorry, not sure I'm following. Are you saying AP already supports this, but fediverse platforms (other than maybe goToSocial) haven't implemented it?
-
@evan Sorry, not sure I'm following. Are you saying AP already supports this, but fediverse platforms (other than maybe goToSocial) haven't implemented it?
Yes, AP has the mechanisms to support it, and I think the specific vocabulary is largely agreed on (there's a FEP, not sure where it is in the process).
It's frustrating that the perception of AP, and current reality of most AP-based software, is so shaped by Mastodon's specific implementation. On the one hand Mastodon's adoption was key to the success of AP, but on the other hand Mastodon's specific choices (also including not adopting C2S) have been less than helpful. Oh well, it is what it is, and hopefully thanks are changing (both with Mastodon and with the broader fediverse)
-
Yes, AP has the mechanisms to support it, and I think the specific vocabulary is largely agreed on (there's a FEP, not sure where it is in the process).
It's frustrating that the perception of AP, and current reality of most AP-based software, is so shaped by Mastodon's specific implementation. On the one hand Mastodon's adoption was key to the success of AP, but on the other hand Mastodon's specific choices (also including not adopting C2S) have been less than helpful. Oh well, it is what it is, and hopefully thanks are changing (both with Mastodon and with the broader fediverse)
@thenexusofprivacy @evan Ah, yes, this does sound familiar, thank you both for reminding me!
