RE: https://neuromatch.social/@jonny/115343246885448739
-
@jonny ... to be deluged with problem content when the reality is it's going to be a pretty small part of it. I'm concerned the consequence of this is going to be friction against the whole feature, and a knee-jerk reaction that says "this just shouldn't happen at all" rather than working with you to find a way to make it work.
It could also create a situation where a user can think their content will be migrated but afterwards discover that only half of it is there. ...
@jonny .... Really, if a target instance isn't going to accept a user's content that should be flagged at the start, not once the account has been migrated but the moderator is later considering whether to accept the content as well. (Am I misunderstanding the proposed sequence of events?)
In general, while I appreciate there needs to be a way to prevent abuse and accommodate admin's concerns about problem content, admins are a big part of why this feature doesn't exist, and I'm concerned ...
-
@jonny .... Really, if a target instance isn't going to accept a user's content that should be flagged at the start, not once the account has been migrated but the moderator is later considering whether to accept the content as well. (Am I misunderstanding the proposed sequence of events?)
In general, while I appreciate there needs to be a way to prevent abuse and accommodate admin's concerns about problem content, admins are a big part of why this feature doesn't exist, and I'm concerned ...
@jonny ... giving them the ability to accept only part of people's content and/or make that decision after the user has otherwise migrated is going to empower them to basically torpedo what you're trying to do, by causing bad experiences for users (whether or not intentionally), demanding the ability to moderate and then not being willing to handle the moderation traffic, or just hindering people's ability to move their content. ...
-
@jonny ... giving them the ability to accept only part of people's content and/or make that decision after the user has otherwise migrated is going to empower them to basically torpedo what you're trying to do, by causing bad experiences for users (whether or not intentionally), demanding the ability to moderate and then not being willing to handle the moderation traffic, or just hindering people's ability to move their content. ...
@jonny ... There's also privacy concerns. Few admins will read posts or people's DMs unless something is flagged as abuse, but it looks like what's proposed here puts all of people's content in front of admins and asks them to review it, which is much more invasive than typical use of the instances otherwise.
If instances accept people signing up and posting without review, I question the grounds on which they want to be able to review all of someone's posting history before allowing migration.
-
@jonny ... There's also privacy concerns. Few admins will read posts or people's DMs unless something is flagged as abuse, but it looks like what's proposed here puts all of people's content in front of admins and asks them to review it, which is much more invasive than typical use of the instances otherwise.
If instances accept people signing up and posting without review, I question the grounds on which they want to be able to review all of someone's posting history before allowing migration.
@jonny ...To cut a long thread short, my personal feel is that while abuse should be prevented and migration should be managed in a way that respects rate limits and doesn't overload instances, a lot of other instance admin concerns are more fear than reality, and may lead to a solution that raises privacy concerns and the risk of unexpected user data loss, while empowering admins to hinder a process they basically don't want to happen, undermining the whole concept of content portability.
-
@benpate @jonny
These are very consistent in the stuff that both do - it is clear that ActivityPub is already *almost* able to do content portability just by serving up content the way it does. We have a task force within the SocialWebCG working on account portability - jonny would you join a call if we schedule one soon? -
-
jonny@neuromatch.social lisarue@mastodon.geekery.org please keep in mind that simplicity is key. I think that's Jonny's FEP's strength.
The more complicated it is, the less buy-in, and you need all the buy-in you can get!
-
@julian
@lisarue
Thank you for saying so! I tried to keep it as simple as I could and take care to carve out space for low-resource authors to implement gradually, though when all the necessary considerations were on the table it feels more complicated than I would like. Glad it still feels simple to others
-
@jonny ...To cut a long thread short, my personal feel is that while abuse should be prevented and migration should be managed in a way that respects rate limits and doesn't overload instances, a lot of other instance admin concerns are more fear than reality, and may lead to a solution that raises privacy concerns and the risk of unexpected user data loss, while empowering admins to hinder a process they basically don't want to happen, undermining the whole concept of content portability.
@jonny Hi there. Just looked at this again and saw the line "Actors must have some means of changing their mind about a move if the terms of moderation are unacceptable to them after the target instance reviews any imported content."
Not sure if that's new or if I missed it before (sorry if I did!
️), but it could take care of a lot of the concerns I mentioned. Was thinking too maybe instances could say on their about pages about policies for migrated content ("we strip all media" for example). -
@jonny Hi there. Just looked at this again and saw the line "Actors must have some means of changing their mind about a move if the terms of moderation are unacceptable to them after the target instance reviews any imported content."
Not sure if that's new or if I missed it before (sorry if I did!
️), but it could take care of a lot of the concerns I mentioned. Was thinking too maybe instances could say on their about pages about policies for migrated content ("we strip all media" for example).@jonny What happens with this now? Sorry if I'm asking you something that's already documented elsewhere (if it is, am happy to read there instead) - I don't know how these kinds of proposals typically progress, but it would be good to see this keep moving forward. Appreciate all the work you've put into it
-
@jonny What happens with this now? Sorry if I'm asking you something that's already documented elsewhere (if it is, am happy to read there instead) - I don't know how these kinds of proposals typically progress, but it would be good to see this keep moving forward. Appreciate all the work you've put into it
@tokyo_0 sorry i must have missed your replies before - that's a thing i had wanted in the spec but didn't have the time to write immediately, so added it shortly after publishing it. the idea to me is that you should propose moving and know if you wouldn't want to move (and in any circumstance be able to go off grid with your backups and pop up later if it takes you awhile to hunt for an instance)
what happens now is that i'm going to implement it and PR into glitch and masto, and revise it along the way
