Stefania Maurizi (@smaurizi.bsky.social)
Uncategorized
1
Posts
1
Posters
3
Views
-
Stefania Maurizi (@smaurizi.bsky.social)
https://bsky.app/profile/smaurizi.bsky.social/post/3mebbqvu2ck2v
> Nuova manifestazione contro #ICE in Italia Dove: #Firenze Quando: oggi, sabato 7 Febbraio, ore 16 #NoICE invito i manifestanti a cercare di proteggersi da #RiconoscimentoFacciale
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@evan No matter whether Bob replied as "followers only" or " everyone", Bob's followers should be able to see his reply. They shouldn't be able to scroll up and see Alice's orignal post unless they also follow Alice. But Alice's choice for her own post should not override Bob's choice for his.
-
Yes, that seems like a good analogy.
-
@evan You've never asked anybody who has a private or follows only account about this have you? There doesn't need to be a massive data, but takes one response and it becomes really difficult to decide to follow the sloppy pattern and keep pushing it forward.
It is an easy path forward to do the right thing.
I’m here to help you.
-
So that etiquette would demand that Bob limit the visibility of his reply to just Alice, and let her decide how far it should reach beyond that. There's a certain grace there, but does the etiquette of telephony translate to microblogging?
-
I’ve always modeled this challenge as a set theory maths problem and the answer is the original set regardless of who is replying, as the original poster set the limiting constraint conditions + selected the members of the group with access to the conversation thread.
Plus there are “n” Bob’s, where “n” is the number of Alice’s followers.
-
@skobkin I always read it as "visible for the OPs followers" like it's implied that "followers only" is applied to the root of the thread.
But after our previous discussion this can definitely be clarified 🤔
@evan
-
@saerdnaer I didn’t know, sorry 🤦♀️
