It is common knowledge that the Fediverse has a huge racism problem.
-
When the victim mentions publicly that they are facing harassment, other Fedi users respond saying that they don’t see any abusive replies, and blame the victim for being too sensitive, or for not correctly using the moderation tools.
#Fediverse #Mastodon #PostPrivacy
(continues)
One technical solution to alleviate this problem would be to force replies to inherit the privacy level of the parent post. If the parent post is “public” or “quiet public”, then the reply also has to be “public” or “quiet public”.
#Fediverse #Mastodon #PostPrivacy
(continues)
-
One technical solution to alleviate this problem would be to force replies to inherit the privacy level of the parent post. If the parent post is “public” or “quiet public”, then the reply also has to be “public” or “quiet public”.
#Fediverse #Mastodon #PostPrivacy
(continues)
Another approach would be to make the OP an authority of all replies. Only those accepted by them would count as replies and show up under their posts - where the accept protocol could be similar to the one for quote posts. FEP-7458 discusses some of the details.
https://codeberg.org/shs/fep/src/branch/main/fep/7458/fep-7458.md
@feralthoughts -
Another approach would be to make the OP an authority of all replies. Only those accepted by them would count as replies and show up under their posts - where the accept protocol could be similar to the one for quote posts. FEP-7458 discusses some of the details.
https://codeberg.org/shs/fep/src/branch/main/fep/7458/fep-7458.md
@feralthoughtsExcellent idea! I have had this kind of thing in mind for quite some time.
Haven't looked at the proposal yet; does this also apply to responses to a response?
Say, user UA on instance A is the OP, UB on B replies to UA's original post, UC on C replies to UB without tagging UA, UD on D replies to UC without tagging UA. Can UA delete the posts by UC and UD, as per the above proposal?
I would prefer UA having that power.
@jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke
-
Excellent idea! I have had this kind of thing in mind for quite some time.
Haven't looked at the proposal yet; does this also apply to responses to a response?
Say, user UA on instance A is the OP, UB on B replies to UA's original post, UC on C replies to UB without tagging UA, UD on D replies to UC without tagging UA. Can UA delete the posts by UC and UD, as per the above proposal?
I would prefer UA having that power.
@jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke
Good question. My read of the proposal is that is each post has its own collection of replies, owned by the author of that specific post. UA would only list the reply by UB, not those further down the thread.
@feralthoughts @jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke -
Good question. My read of the proposal is that is each post has its own collection of replies, owned by the author of that specific post. UA would only list the reply by UB, not those further down the thread.
@feralthoughts @jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokerekeIn that case, one of the abusers can write a mundane-sounding reply to the OP, and then other members of the brigade can pile on in follower-only (or mentioned-people-only) replies to that reply, leaving the OP unable to delete those abusive replies.
I feel the OP should have authority over the entire thread.
@jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke
-
In that case, one of the abusers can write a mundane-sounding reply to the OP, and then other members of the brigade can pile on in follower-only (or mentioned-people-only) replies to that reply, leaving the OP unable to delete those abusive replies.
I feel the OP should have authority over the entire thread.
@jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke
I can see that. Defining the behavior you want over the protocol might get complicated. OP could still detach the brigade-anchor though. Not delete, mind you. The FEP does not assign edit powers over other people's post - it just makes the replies list ownership explicit.
@feralthoughts @jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke -
I can see that. Defining the behavior you want over the protocol might get complicated. OP could still detach the brigade-anchor though. Not delete, mind you. The FEP does not assign edit powers over other people's post - it just makes the replies list ownership explicit.
@feralthoughts @jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke@osma @jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke
I wonder how ActivityPub-based Forte does it.
Also check
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)
-
I can see that. Defining the behavior you want over the protocol might get complicated. OP could still detach the brigade-anchor though. Not delete, mind you. The FEP does not assign edit powers over other people's post - it just makes the replies list ownership explicit.
@feralthoughts @jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke@osma @feralthoughts @jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke
https://w3id.org/fep/7458 is for managing direct replies as you understood correctly. but there is a separate fep for modeling an entire thread, https://w3id.org/fep/7888 -- the problem in mastodon right now is that *there is no thread*. mastodon is assembling individual posts based on a chain of replies, with no real context.
-
@osma @feralthoughts @jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke
https://w3id.org/fep/7458 is for managing direct replies as you understood correctly. but there is a separate fep for modeling an entire thread, https://w3id.org/fep/7888 -- the problem in mastodon right now is that *there is no thread*. mastodon is assembling individual posts based on a chain of replies, with no real context.
@osma @feralthoughts @jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke the basic idea is to stop privileging replies above all else, and to allow people to explicitly create discussion threads where the "OP" can "own" that thread (and OP gets to decide what to include or exclude). the problem with reply trees is that no one can "own" them, because they're not real (it's just a bunch of links being loaded automatically)
-
@osma @feralthoughts @jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke the basic idea is to stop privileging replies above all else, and to allow people to explicitly create discussion threads where the "OP" can "own" that thread (and OP gets to decide what to include or exclude). the problem with reply trees is that no one can "own" them, because they're not real (it's just a bunch of links being loaded automatically)
Yep. Just one of the places software engineering which doesn't recognize social contracts fails everyone.
@trwnh @feralthoughts @jdp23 @aj @julian @scottjenson @alexisbushnell @mekkaokereke
