Just an occasional reminder that disabling replies is the #1 requested feature from Mastodon.

[renwillis@mstdn.social]

Really takes the whole social thing out of social.

[stefan@stefanbohacek.online]

@shironeko I'd recommend going through the linked conversations about potential approaches, but in my mind, I'd imagine each server would reject replies that don't match the reply settings.

Yes, there will be servers, either running outdated fediverse software, or designed to ignore the settings, and the replies might be visible there, but their reach will be limited.

Obviously you can't stop people from talking about you in their dark corner far away, just like screenshots easily work around quote permissions. Or someone writing a blog post about you.

Still, what we have now is pretty subpar and I've seen too many people leaving the fediverse because they feel unsafe and unwelcome. And they tell their friends who will never come here.

This has to change.

[feliscatusdomesticus@social.vivaldi.net]

@stefan

More and more, it seems that Mastodon is just Telegram, if Telegram were designed by idiots. "Microblogging" is a silly conceit held by a minority of silly users. For the majority of users, Mastodon and all others are simply a modern version of IRC chat. The moment you respond to a post- it is chat (or even worse- a web forum).. the moment it becomes interactive, it becomes chat. Nothing more. Micro-blogging is conceptual nonsense. Any linking to an outside URL/website nullifies any conceit of "Micro-blogging".. it once again becomes mere IRC chat pointing to "click and look at my off-fedi website.." The fedi has existed for long enough now. The devs need to sit down and have a reality check. Sluff off any of the old idealism from 2010 that no longer fits or has lost relevance due to the shifting usage patterns of the majority. Fail at this and the Fedi, in it's own time will go the way of ICQ, AIM, IRC, and all the others that came before but were merely instances of the same old thing as before.

[danimrich@mastodon.social]

@stefan This would also be useful for those accounts that are run by a bot scraping an RSS feed. I'm not too fond of them, but they seem to have a use for some people.

[manankanchu@mastodon.social]

@stefan

wrong comparison, I guess...

I'd consider a blog being similar to a newspaper and comments being like readers letters... unsuitable for discussion between blogger and different readers to each other...

bloggers writing crap are simply ignored, tooters writing crap are spread through federal and local timelines to hundreds of thousands like on Twitter.

Such crappy tooters will block replies requiring hundreds of thousand to take action by blocking/reporting... happy times for mods

[notsoloud@expressional.social]

@stefan
But what if I don't want a github account?

[mina@berlin.social]

@stefan

I reckon, exactly this lack of control and incompetent moderation across the network is, what drove e.g. so many Black people from the US away from the Fediverse into the arms of the next monolithic platform.

@amberage @Edent @julian

[shironeko@fedi.tesaguri.club]

@stefan right so the feature is actually "ignore replies to this post"

[nini@oldbytes.space]

@stefan I'll take limiting who can reply over denying replies outright, just feels a bit like you want a shortform blog with comments turned off in that case. Could work with some stuff but then it's basically an RSS feed so maybe not much use for a read-only experience on something that encourages read-write like Mastodon.

[fabianegli@fosstodon.org]

@renchap @stefan I am grateful for everyone pouring their thoughts and energy into making AP/Mastodon the best it can be in a complex world with complex social and societal environments where every change has multiple and sometimes opposing effects. I am looking forward to experiencing the continued evolution of Mastodon!

[pre@boing.world]

@julian @stefan A reply isn't really pushed into the fediverse exactly, it's just delivered to the followers of the person replying. And most of those will ignore it unless they also follow the OP.

If it's not okay for you from a trust and safety perspective, you can always just not do it and leave the feature only for those for whom its fine or preferable.

[stefan@stefanbohacek.online]

@shironeko Ignoring them still keeps them visible to others though.

I mean look, not much more here to add, we're discussing the top most upvoted feature request. I think we can trust that people need this.

[stefan@stefanbohacek.online]

@mina Yes, exactly.

But even with the best moderation in the world, having to wait for someone to come to your rescue while the abuse piles on, I can imagine that being off-putting enough.

Have you come across this explanation of the "Sucker-punch Problem"? It's illustrating a bit different point, but I think also explains really well why people having tools to defend themselves is important.

https://lgbtqia.space/@alice/115499829288185416

@amberage @Edent @julian

[stefan@stefanbohacek.online]

@nini Yes, this is a common argument against reply controls, but I honestly don't get the issue. If this is how some people want to use social media, so be it. I don't feel the need to reply to everything I read online. If I see something that bothers me, I can always report it.

Plus, maybe some people don't want replies, but will allow quote-boosting? Maybe that works better for some, this is really more about giving people the freedom to decide.

[stefan@stefanbohacek.online]

@renwillis Well, if you think of Mastodon as a "micro blog", and blogs can have their comments disabled, or approved individually, or only allowed for people with privileges, it does kind of make sense?

[stefan@stefanbohacek.online]

@manankanchu I think it's a good comparison. Just like I don't owe anyone space on my blog, I also don't owe anyone my time or my audience in my replies here. Or if I print my own newspaper, I don't have to publish every letter to the editor that I receive.

"requiring hundreds of thousand to take action"

As opposed to hundreds of thousands posting the same condescending responses?

You see something that's breaking your server's rules, you report it and move on. You see something you don't like or agree with? You can just move on. Not everything posted online requires a response.

I think this just comes down to people wanting to set their boundaries, and we should all learn to respect that.

[nini@oldbytes.space]

@stefan Choice is not bad, just seems a very blunt instrument.

[stefan@stefanbohacek.online]

@nini I hear you, but I have seen far too many people leave because of issues that would've been solved if they had more control over their replies.

And then they tell their friends and those will never give the fediverse a fair chance.

I think people are willing to put up with a lot. Bluesky doesn't let you edit your messages. There is a higher character limit. Translation features are just a link to Google Translate.

But people feel safe there.

I don't even care about the fediverse "growing". I just want people who are already here to feel safe and welcome.

[nini@oldbytes.space]

@stefan My objection isn't towards implementing it's a big issue for those who want it and people have their reasons for having the option to control who can interact with their toots besides harassment like just not wanting a reply to a recent toot they made or limiting it to their mutuals. I just feel like it could work in tandem with stronger moderation as read-only toots make me feel despondent, like people don't feel safe but it is just one tool after all.

[the@ultracrepidarian.mysteriar.ch]

@stefan

I would love that.

Also, Mastodon is (somewhat) behind the times on this one. GoToSocial already has similar settings, and one might even argue that they're more powerful than simply turning replies on or off from the compose box, depending on what "powerful" is supposed to mean. I actually don't really care, though; there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to have this, and the "toggle switch" at the same time; it's not like they're mutually exclusive (or should be).

I'd rather have both.