Cake please#birds #robin #InterspeciesFriendship #cake
Uncategorized
2
Posts
2
Posters
0
Views
-
Cake please
#birds #robin #InterspeciesFriendship #cake -
undefined oblomov@sociale.network shared this topic
-
Cake please
#birds #robin #InterspeciesFriendship #cake@luvan Intelligenza Autentica 👍
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@francina1909 un caro saluto.
Gli scozzesi...
-
@evan Given all the complexities and real and potential vectors of abuse, maybe replies to followers-only posts should be forced to be private mentions?
Sometimes people share personal things using followers-only visibility, and replying directly without exposing private details seems the most appropriate.
Eg. not announcing "Hope you'll recover from the diarrhea soon, Bob!" to potentially thousands of strangers, or even people who do know Bob, but Bob was not addressing in his post.
-
@evan if "mutuals only" were a visibility option, then I'd be okay with reconsidering "followers only" visibility.
-
@evan
Yes, that's exactly my point.I try not to use such posts even if I want to because it would confuse people and I don't want them to see separate meaningless replies.
-
@evan@cosocial.ca it's worse than I thought then 😅
I think there probably should have been a distinction between who you can address in the discussions you start, compared to the discussions someone else starts. It's a privacy issue. Say for example that for some reason I don't want everyone to know I am online and posting, so I restrict the visibility of my posts. Then someone else can see one of my followers replying to me (since including the handle in the replies also practically reveals who you are replying to).
Say for example I am asking my friends on fedi what to do about someone who harasses me. And someone replies to my post with advice about harassment. The person who harasses me could very well understand what I'm talking about.
It is what it is, of course, just saying, I think this particular aspect is not optimal behaviour for social media.
-
If Alice explicitly limited the visibility why could the reply need a broader range? Bob's subscribers won't see the original post anyway.
They shouldn't see the OP. They should see the thread from the interaction. Otherwise it makes no sense that since they interacted their subscribers would only see separate replies without any knowing to what it was or wasn't.
If they don't want anyone to see that, let them use DM to not confuse other people.This would better be better applied to quotes
No, he shouldn't because Alice set the OP visibility like that.
And before you say "then why comments", I've already said that it confuses people around them. Force them to use DM or show to subscribers of both.
That's one part of fediverse's main problems: lack of obviousness.
-
@evan
I’m surprised at the results here. To me it seems like a cut-and-dry consent issue: Alice has indicated in the original post that she only consents to communicating with people who follow her on that post. By making Bob’s replies visible to Bob’s followers (or anyone else) you’re exposing Alice to accounts she did explicitly did not consent to communicating with. 🤨
-
@evan there isn't any protocol to communicate consent with all parties, so it just has to be a broken mess.
Even if Bob gets a return list of Alices followers and allows those the thread is still broken for all of Bobs followers who are not in Alice's list. Even if you had reply controls for Alice to approve Bobs reply it would have to retroactively apply to all of Alice's posts to be useful to Bobs followers. And beyond just retroactively applying this change it'd be a mess to communicate that this was happening in the UI. And we didn't even wonder what happens with a 3rd participant yet.
I think the concept is mostly just flawed and the best we can do is mostly broken threads and a working implementation for the people who are in the subset of all followers lists.
