If Alice makes a followers-only post, and Bob replies to it, to whom should Bob's reply be visible?
-
@evan EXACTLY what I imagined.
So, the answer would be visible to the intersect between them.
Of course, how that scales as *those* people reply... there lies the rub. -
@evan I think there should be 2 settings: "followers only" and "followers cascade" (or something).
The first restricts it to Alice's followers only. So Bob's reply is not visible to any of his followers that are not also Alice's followers.
The second is visible only to Alice's followers when posted but becomes visible to all Bob's followers once he replies.This second setting would probably more safe than a general public post, based on the birds of a feather hypothesis, but less safe than the first.
I an ideal world, where everyone behaves themselves, all posts should be public for all. I'm going to take a nap now until that happens. Wake me up when it comes.
-
@flippac it's not how most other social networks work. If Alice posted a private photo on Instagram, and Bob commented, Alice's other followers could see Bob's comment, but Bob's followers could not.
@evan to put this another way: we either have a notion of somebody's "space" as opposed to just their account, or we don't - and currently we don't just as xitter doesn't
if we don't have "space" to post to, what I'm suggesting is the most privacy-preserving option
i'd be entirely cool with adding a notion of spaces and everybody having one of their own by default ("communities" being another example that's not always owned by exactly one account), except if we've got that far i want the option of "exactly these people" filters too
-
My vote was based on current implementation and explanation of same to users.
However, if we ask "ought" rather than "should" (principle rather than expectation), then reply visibility would be contingent on the propinquity of followers to both Alice and Bob, which is to say, not all of either interlocutor's followers would see the post, but rather visibility would be a function of relationship weights with each follower across both participants in the exchange.
-
@evan It should obviously be visible to Eve.
-
-
@mhoye so, as the conversation goes on, the audience gets smaller and smaller?
-
I selected other. I feel that Bob's post's visibility should be defined by Bob's settings for that post.
Followers of Bob that don't also follow Alice could see his reply and know that it was a reply to something else, but they'd not see what it was in reply to.
Conceptual parallel: one can comment publicly on copyright protected material that others may not be able to see. one can also comment publicly on classified info (there may be penalties for doing so, but it can be done).
-
@raymaccarthy Alice shouldn't get to choose the privacy of Bob's words. As I said, Bob's followers shouldn't be able to scroll up to see Alice's words, but there's no reason that Alice should be able to ensure that Bob's followers can't see Bob's words. They're not her words, it's not her choice, just as Bob shouldn't get to choose who gets to see Alice's words. @evan
@ZenHeathen @evan
She should if she started a non-universal conversation.Bob can post his replay also to his followers, but that is certainly not cricket.
-
I selected other. I feel that Bob's post's visibility should be defined by Bob's settings for that post.
Followers of Bob that don't also follow Alice could see his reply and know that it was a reply to something else, but they'd not see what it was in reply to.
Conceptual parallel: one can comment publicly on copyright protected material that others may not be able to see. one can also comment publicly on classified info (there may be penalties for doing so, but it can be done).
@jmcclure yes, of course it should be defined by Bob's settings.
But what settings should be available to him? And what should be the default? Most of all, what should he choose?
-
@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.
-
@ZenHeathen @evan
She should if she started a non-universal conversation.Bob can post his replay also to his followers, but that is certainly not cricket.
@raymaccarthy It's a microblogging platform, not a blog, and not a forum where one can make a post and control who can post under it. Alice can control her post and who sees it, and can control for herself who's posts she sees, but she should not have any control over what anyone else's posts. You cannot convince me on this point. Alice controls Alice's posts, Bob controls Bob's posts, Alice must not be allowed to control Bob's posts and Bob must not be allowed to control Alice's posts. Period. @evan
-
@benroyce@mastodon.social @evan@cosocial.ca this idea occurred to me, but in general I think this hardly ever actually matters in practice.
If Bob is the kind of person to fake screenshots, then everyone, especially Alice, will presumably block him.
I could be wrong on this, but it seems to me like a trick you can only pull once, and not that impressive of one.
And if I'm right that fake screenshots isn't an important attack vector, then there isn't much difference between sharing the post and sharing the screenshot of it.
-
@jmcclure yes, of course it should be defined by Bob's settings.
But what settings should be available to him? And what should be the default? Most of all, what should he choose?
Forgive me if I'm missing something here, but I can't quite square the original poll options with "of course it should be defined by Bob's settings".
My thought was that and / all settings that Bob would ever have for his own posts should be available to him, and the default should be whatever his default normally is.
Essentially, (my view is) the fact that Bob's post is in reply to something else is beside the point: Bob's post is Bob's post, just like any other he'd make.
-
@raymaccarthy It's a microblogging platform, not a blog, and not a forum where one can make a post and control who can post under it. Alice can control her post and who sees it, and can control for herself who's posts she sees, but she should not have any control over what anyone else's posts. You cannot convince me on this point. Alice controls Alice's posts, Bob controls Bob's posts, Alice must not be allowed to control Bob's posts and Bob must not be allowed to control Alice's posts. Period. @evan
@ZenHeathen @evan
In your opinion.What's the point of starting a Followers only thread if anyone can trivially make it all public. That's not how chat groups or a conversation in the office works.
"Followers only" a is pointless feature if all followers of each person replying see it.
-
@ZenHeathen @evan
In your opinion.What's the point of starting a Followers only thread if anyone can trivially make it all public. That's not how chat groups or a conversation in the office works.
"Followers only" a is pointless feature if all followers of each person replying see it.
@raymaccarthy I think we're talking about different things. I'm saying Bob should be able to show Bob's own post to whomever he wishes (short, of course, from anyone who has blocked or muted Bob, or filtered out a word in Bob's post, etc. etc.). Are you saying that, once Bob posts on Alice's thread, that action makes Alice's thread visible to others? That's not my understanding, and it shouldn't be that way. @evan
-
@benroyce@mastodon.social @evan@cosocial.ca this idea occurred to me, but in general I think this hardly ever actually matters in practice.
If Bob is the kind of person to fake screenshots, then everyone, especially Alice, will presumably block him.
I could be wrong on this, but it seems to me like a trick you can only pull once, and not that impressive of one.
And if I'm right that fake screenshots isn't an important attack vector, then there isn't much difference between sharing the post and sharing the screenshot of it.
sure but caveat emptor
since we're already assuming malicious actors, we shouldn't assume a floor on their behavior. and since malicious actors implies people blocking them, anyone who might come around to correct the lie might never see the lie. thus the liar can effectively seed and propagate lies about people in a silo, and manufacture enough false impressions to create anger and distrust of the liar's target
thus, i never trust screenshots
-
sure but caveat emptor
since we're already assuming malicious actors, we shouldn't assume a floor on their behavior. and since malicious actors implies people blocking them, anyone who might come around to correct the lie might never see the lie. thus the liar can effectively seed and propagate lies about people in a silo, and manufacture enough false impressions to create anger and distrust of the liar's target
thus, i never trust screenshots
@benroyce@mastodon.social @evan@cosocial.ca that sounds reasonable to me. We all have some level of duty to be skeptical, especially of claims about people
-
@raymaccarthy I think we're talking about different things. I'm saying Bob should be able to show Bob's own post to whomever he wishes (short, of course, from anyone who has blocked or muted Bob, or filtered out a word in Bob's post, etc. etc.). Are you saying that, once Bob posts on Alice's thread, that action makes Alice's thread visible to others? That's not my understanding, and it shouldn't be that way. @evan
@ZenHeathen @evan
Bob ethically shouldn't be showing his reply to a limited audience thread to all his followers. He can trivially do it by simply a copy / paste anyway.In the real world in Mastodon all privacy features are flawed. Assume everyone sees everything.
"Private" is misnamed on Mastodon. There are no private or limited messages.
-
@ZenHeathen @evan
Bob ethically shouldn't be showing his reply to a limited audience thread to all his followers. He can trivially do it by simply a copy / paste anyway.In the real world in Mastodon all privacy features are flawed. Assume everyone sees everything.
"Private" is misnamed on Mastodon. There are no private or limited messages.
@raymaccarthy I'm sure I've replied to "followers only" things from time to time, *guaranteed* without knowing that they were, because unless I'm digging, and reminded for some reason to do so, I don't even remember where in the interface that I would find that. And I've never posted anything to my followers only.
But if what you describe is how it works, then... No one should ever reply to anything posts "followers only", ever. Because as soon as they do, it moves beyond what the original posted intended. Like, there's no way to even participate in good faith in that conversation, you can't possibly say anything at all. If anything, the setting should be between Normal and Read-Only. @evan
