Of course, an abuser can start a new “followers only” or “mentioned users only” post tagging the victim.
-
@feralthoughts no question that this is an important harassment vector — and great description @aj . Another factor here is that because of the peculiar (and counterintuitive) semantics of “followers-only” posts here, a followers-only reply to a followers-only post can have somewhat-similar dynamics: it’s visible to the followers of the replies, and not to the followers of the original poster (OP). Of course that can only be done by somebody following the OP … but with follower approval off by default that’s not necessarily a huge bar.
As for the specific proposal … maybe? On Twitter, “private quote tweets” (a followers-only quote tweet of a public post) were a significant harassment vector until they prohibited them; followers-only replies have some similar dynamics. In general though all this stuff is complex enough that I don’t have good intuitions about it … social threat modeling or some other structured approach is reality needed.
FYI @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell this is a good example of what we were talking about yesterday of how even though the overall anti-Blackness problems are cultural, there are areas where safety- related functionality can also be useful. And cc @mekkaokereke this is a harassment vector you’ve talked about in the pastabout!
@jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke
Oops, my account is default public, and I am more of a lurker from the global south; so the peculiar dynamics that you are highlighting had never occurred to me - that the followers-only reply to a followers-only post will be visible only to the followers of the responding poster and NOT the followers of the OP.
(continues)
-
@jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke
Oops, my account is default public, and I am more of a lurker from the global south; so the peculiar dynamics that you are highlighting had never occurred to me - that the followers-only reply to a followers-only post will be visible only to the followers of the responding poster and NOT the followers of the OP.
(continues)
@jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke
This means a followers-only thread is going to be utterly broken, with each reply being visible only to a random subset of participants. And then it is common on the Fedi for people to randomly tag others, which will cause even more disorientation.
-
@jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke
This means a followers-only thread is going to be utterly broken, with each reply being visible only to a random subset of participants. And then it is common on the Fedi for people to randomly tag others, which will cause even more disorientation.
Yes it really is a horrible user experience. It’s frustrating because Friendica and its successors (Hubzilla, (streams), and Forte) have long supported a model where the OP controls the thread - similar to blogs or Facebook - but Mastodon was modeled more after Twitter so inherited this problem.
The good news is that the changes getting made to enable thread-gating (“only followers can quote/ reply”) and the importance of Threadiverse compatibility both lead to taking a new look at this, and Mastodon’s work on quote posts sets a precedent for doing it with safety in mind.
@feralthoughts @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke
-
Yes it really is a horrible user experience. It’s frustrating because Friendica and its successors (Hubzilla, (streams), and Forte) have long supported a model where the OP controls the thread - similar to blogs or Facebook - but Mastodon was modeled more after Twitter so inherited this problem.
The good news is that the changes getting made to enable thread-gating (“only followers can quote/ reply”) and the importance of Threadiverse compatibility both lead to taking a new look at this, and Mastodon’s work on quote posts sets a precedent for doing it with safety in mind.
@feralthoughts @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke
@jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke
Yes, I know. And Forte is ActivityPub-based, so other AP-based software should be able to emulate that behaviour.
I think a technical solution to enable this (OP having authority over the entire thread) would be to route all responses through the instance hosting the original poster.
(continues)
-
@jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke
Yes, I know. And Forte is ActivityPub-based, so other AP-based software should be able to emulate that behaviour.
I think a technical solution to enable this (OP having authority over the entire thread) would be to route all responses through the instance hosting the original poster.
(continues)
@jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke @osma
So... say, user UA on instance A writes a new post. User UB on instance B replies. User UC on instance C replies to UB’s post. User UD replies to UC’s post. UD’s post should reach instances C and B though A (D -> A -> C and D -> A -> B). Same with all other replies.
Of course, this will also give the OP the authority to delete any subsequent post in that thread.
-
Yes it really is a horrible user experience. It’s frustrating because Friendica and its successors (Hubzilla, (streams), and Forte) have long supported a model where the OP controls the thread - similar to blogs or Facebook - but Mastodon was modeled more after Twitter so inherited this problem.
The good news is that the changes getting made to enable thread-gating (“only followers can quote/ reply”) and the importance of Threadiverse compatibility both lead to taking a new look at this, and Mastodon’s work on quote posts sets a precedent for doing it with safety in mind.
@feralthoughts @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke
@jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke @osma
As an aside: the need to tag everyone who is already participating in a thread (so that they are notified of one's post) is a major element of the broken user experience.
As it is, there are limited characters available. If there are a lot of participants in a conversation, half the characters are lost in tagging. Another 25-30% in hashtags. Hardly anything is left for the actual text!
(continues)
-
@jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke @osma
As an aside: the need to tag everyone who is already participating in a thread (so that they are notified of one's post) is a major element of the broken user experience.
As it is, there are limited characters available. If there are a lot of participants in a conversation, half the characters are lost in tagging. Another 25-30% in hashtags. Hardly anything is left for the actual text!
(continues)
@jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke @osma
So people start randomly untagging some recipients. And what we get is silos in sub-threads and sub-sub-threads with neither the OP nor anyone else having track of what’s going on. This design is incredibly poor, in terms of fostering an inclusive participatory conversation.
(continues)
-
@jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke @osma
So people start randomly untagging some recipients. And what we get is silos in sub-threads and sub-sub-threads with neither the OP nor anyone else having track of what’s going on. This design is incredibly poor, in terms of fostering an inclusive participatory conversation.
(continues)
@jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke @osma
Ideally, every single user who boosts a post in a thread, or replies to some post in a thread, should automatically get notified of every subsequent post in that thread. Of course, so should the OP.
What I suggested in
Feral Thoughts (@feralthoughts@union.place)
@jdp23@neuromatch.social @aj@gts.sadauskas.id.au @julian@community.nodebb.org @scottjenson@social.coop @alexisbushnell@toot.wales @mekkaokereke@hachyderm.io Yes, I know. And Forte is ActivityPub-based, so other AP-based software should be able to emulate that behaviour. I think a technical solution to enable this (OP having authority over the entire thread) would be to route all responses through the instance hosting the original poster. @osma@mas.to (continues)
The Union Place (union.place)
and
Feral Thoughts (@feralthoughts@union.place)
@jdp23@neuromatch.social @aj@gts.sadauskas.id.au @julian@community.nodebb.org @scottjenson@social.coop @alexisbushnell@toot.wales @mekkaokereke@hachyderm.io @osma@mas.to So... say, user UA on instance A writes a new post. User UB on instance B replies. User UC on instance C replies to UB’s post. User UD replies to UC’s post. UD’s post should reach instances C and B though A (D -> A -> C and D -> A -> B). Same with all other replies. Of course, this will also give the OP the authority to delete any subsequent post in that thread.
The Union Place (union.place)
may help achieving this?
(continues)
-
@jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke @osma
Ideally, every single user who boosts a post in a thread, or replies to some post in a thread, should automatically get notified of every subsequent post in that thread. Of course, so should the OP.
What I suggested in
Feral Thoughts (@feralthoughts@union.place)
@jdp23@neuromatch.social @aj@gts.sadauskas.id.au @julian@community.nodebb.org @scottjenson@social.coop @alexisbushnell@toot.wales @mekkaokereke@hachyderm.io Yes, I know. And Forte is ActivityPub-based, so other AP-based software should be able to emulate that behaviour. I think a technical solution to enable this (OP having authority over the entire thread) would be to route all responses through the instance hosting the original poster. @osma@mas.to (continues)
The Union Place (union.place)
and
Feral Thoughts (@feralthoughts@union.place)
@jdp23@neuromatch.social @aj@gts.sadauskas.id.au @julian@community.nodebb.org @scottjenson@social.coop @alexisbushnell@toot.wales @mekkaokereke@hachyderm.io @osma@mas.to So... say, user UA on instance A writes a new post. User UB on instance B replies. User UC on instance C replies to UB’s post. User UD replies to UC’s post. UD’s post should reach instances C and B though A (D -> A -> C and D -> A -> B). Same with all other replies. Of course, this will also give the OP the authority to delete any subsequent post in that thread.
The Union Place (union.place)
may help achieving this?
(continues)
@jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke @osma
What if someone doesn’t want to receive ALL the responses in a thread? For this purpose, I think there should be an option for any user to unsubscribe from the thread.
And the other side of the same coin: any user should be able to subscribe to a public thread of their interest, and get notifications of all subsequent posts in that thread.
-
@jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke
This means a followers-only thread is going to be utterly broken, with each reply being visible only to a random subset of participants. And then it is common on the Fedi for people to randomly tag others, which will cause even more disorientation.
@jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke
It seems obvious, at least to me, that all responses, and responses to those responses, should inherit the “privacy group” of recipients set by the original post of a thread. So if the original post is followers-only, all responses and responses-to-responses should only be visible to the followers of the OP, not the followers of the respondents.
(continues)
-
@jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke
It seems obvious, at least to me, that all responses, and responses to those responses, should inherit the “privacy group” of recipients set by the original post of a thread. So if the original post is followers-only, all responses and responses-to-responses should only be visible to the followers of the OP, not the followers of the respondents.
(continues)
@jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke
What happens if some reply post tags an outsider? What ought to happen?
Maybe tagging should be forbidden for follower-only posts? And replies should be forbidden from tagging anyone in mentioned-people-only posts?
-
Yes it really is a horrible user experience. It’s frustrating because Friendica and its successors (Hubzilla, (streams), and Forte) have long supported a model where the OP controls the thread - similar to blogs or Facebook - but Mastodon was modeled more after Twitter so inherited this problem.
The good news is that the changes getting made to enable thread-gating (“only followers can quote/ reply”) and the importance of Threadiverse compatibility both lead to taking a new look at this, and Mastodon’s work on quote posts sets a precedent for doing it with safety in mind.
@feralthoughts @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke
@jdp23 @aj @normative @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke
As I write these multiple multi-post mini-threads, I keep wishing there was some UI to compose and post these threads in one go.
I hope @scottjenson and his team design this soon.
(The new design of the Mastodon web UI feels so much better than the earlier one, so I know they are hard at work, and doing an excellent job. Just expressing a wish here.)
-
@jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke @osma
So... say, user UA on instance A writes a new post. User UB on instance B replies. User UC on instance C replies to UB’s post. User UD replies to UC’s post. UD’s post should reach instances C and B though A (D -> A -> C and D -> A -> B). Same with all other replies.
Of course, this will also give the OP the authority to delete any subsequent post in that thread.
@jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke @osma @ricci
I accumulated the scattered points I have made in this thread in a single thread at
Feral Thoughts (@feralthoughts@union.place)
🧵 arguing that all responses to a new post (the original post of any thread) and responses to those responses should be routed to all the participants through the instance hosting the original poster (and that all responses should mandatorily inherit the privacy level of the original post, and also mandatorily inherit the “privacy group” of recipients set by the original post). #Fediverse #Mastodon (continues)
The Union Place (union.place)
-
@jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke @osma
What if someone doesn’t want to receive ALL the responses in a thread? For this purpose, I think there should be an option for any user to unsubscribe from the thread.
And the other side of the same coin: any user should be able to subscribe to a public thread of their interest, and get notifications of all subsequent posts in that thread.
On the latter point, even the simplest implementations of a reply collection would allow the user's home server to notify them of updates in the size and contents of the collection. However, there's a big difference in wanting to see new (direct) replies, and wanting to follow every sub thread.
@feralthoughts @jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke
