Just an occasional reminder that disabling replies is the #1 requested feature from Mastodon.
Fediverso
51
Posts
21
Posters
266
Views
-
@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Yes, there will be servers, either running outdated fediverse software, or designed to ignore the settings, and the replies might be visible there, but their reach will be limited.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.
@stefan right so the feature is actually "ignore replies to this post" -
Just an occasional reminder that disabling replies is the #1 requested feature from Mastodon.
https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20sort%3Areactions-%2B1-desc
Limiting who can reply is also worth giving a thumbs-up to, currently at #10.
https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/14762
#mastodon #fediverse #ReplyControls #SocialMedia #TrustAndSafety
@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.
-
@stefan occasional reminder that we are very well aware of this and if it’s not implemented it’s because it is incredibly complex and impossible to do right on all aspects due to the federation, and reaching a compromise on how it should work exactly is not easy.
But that’s near the top of the things we want to do and will happen at some point.@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!
-
@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 right so the feature is actually "ignore replies to this post"
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
@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.
-
Really takes the whole social thing out of social.
@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?
-
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
@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 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 Choice is not bad, just seems a very blunt instrument.
-
@stefan Choice is not bad, just seems a very blunt instrument.
@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 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.
@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.
-
Just an occasional reminder that disabling replies is the #1 requested feature from Mastodon.
https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20sort%3Areactions-%2B1-desc
Limiting who can reply is also worth giving a thumbs-up to, currently at #10.
https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/14762
#mastodon #fediverse #ReplyControls #SocialMedia #TrustAndSafety
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.
-
@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.
@nini Oh absolutely, I think we need both tools for "self-defense", and better tools for moderators as well.
Have you seen the latest Mastodon roadmap by any chance?
https://joinmastodon.org/roadmap
> Moderation tools
> Looking at ways to make moderation easier, e.g. shared block lists.Sounds promising!
-
@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.
This is an excellent text.
As I understand it, it emphasizes the current problem we're facing in the Fediverse.
-
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.
@the Yeah, it's been a bit frustrating seeing Mastodon, being the far more popular platform, lag behind GTS in this.
It's unfortunate GTS hasn't gained more traction, maybe we'd be in a different position and not have so many people flee to Bluesky, or even back to Twitter/X.
Hopefully not too late to get things right.
-
@mina Absolutely! The metaphor is so visceral, I think people wo don't deal with abuse daily can really understand the issue better.
My go-to response now when people appear confused why anyone would want better self-defense tools.
(But yes, as the story mainly highlights, good moderation is a must as well.)
-
@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 ignoring is what you are describing yeah? again, replies are distributed by the replier's server, you have no control over it. -
@stefan ignoring is what you are describing yeah? again, replies are distributed by the replier's server, you have no control over it.
@shironeko I see what you mean. I guess you can put it that way. So all the servers that respect reply controls will "ignore" the reply and not display it, making it basically invisible to the original poster and pretty much all their followers.
Outdated servers and servers set up to purposefully ignore reply controls can be blocked.
Seems like a pretty good solution.
Feed RSS
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@jonny@neuromatch.social honestly good for you for investing the time to critique this knowing it's AI (adjacent or wholesale) involvement.
-
@julian @PortaFed
giving a further read: I can't really imagine a case where someone would a) regularly be creating signed backups and also b) know in advance where you wanted to migrate to to set the destination_did. Like if this is for the case where the instance has shut down, you might have some signed backup, but you probably haven't planned in advance where you would want to migrate, and if the instance is down you wouldn't be able to create the migration object after the fact.the validation strategy for the export is sort of mystifying to me. if the whole object is signed, then why would you need a merkle tree for objects and also an object count? if the contents of the object have changed post signing, then the signature validation will just fail and those are irrelevant.
true to form for LLM generated documents, several critical things are left undefined, like what last_accepted_sequence is or how that works.
probably the most important problem is that it's not really clear how all other instances are supposed to handle this, which is the entire hard part of a migration spec. Like, if the purpose here is to preserve identity, then you would need to have all the other instances come to see the new identity as being equivalent to the old identity, and there's no discussion of how that process works for third-party instances at all. like e.g. in FEP-1580 i had to spend a long time gaming out scenarios for how third party instances would handle a move event.
so without that it's not really an account portabiltiy spec, it's an account export/import spec, which is fine, just not really needed since signing objects and collections (which this spec should use anyway) is already described by other specs.
-
@silverpillThank you , these are important corrections and I appreciate you taking the time.
You're right on both points. I'll update the spec to reflect that FEP-ef61 authority is not actor-rooted in the way I described, and that migration is possible via outbox export-import. I was overstating the gap.
The distinction I was trying to draw is narrower:
-
I have a couple of comments regarding the spec https://codeberg.org/portafed/portafed/src/branch/main/portafed-spec/spec.md
It contains a comparison with FEP-ef61, but it is not quite correct:
- FEP-ef61 identity is not actor-rooted. The closest equivalent of FEP-ef61 identity in normal ActivityPub is a server with a domain name. A single FEP-ef61 authority can manage multiple actor documents.
- FEP-ef61 does not lack a migration flow. Strictly speaking, it doesn't need one, because data is not attached to a server and can be continuously synchronized between multiple servers. But a more familiar migration flow is also possible via outbox export-import.
-
@benpate That would be great and happy to contribute wherever it fits.
My guess on the scope decision is the same as yours: hostile-server recovery is genuinely harder, and a cooperative spec is already a lot to get right. Makes sense to tackle it separately.
Take your time reading. I'll put together a short write-up of how MigrationProof could slot into the existing spec easier to react to something concrete than to an abstract pitch.
-
@jonny@neuromatch.social tracks doesn't it 😝
-
-
Warm up the fire! We're LIVE!
Summer in Winter: Norcal Gma 2's Journey with her Dog - E79
#owncast #streaming #interview #fediverse #fedi #people #show #firesidefedi #FsF
