2023-11-28 13:45:48
2022-11-26 17:35:26
2022-11-26 17:33:01
1079214
The #Diaspora project is what it is, but I really like the Diaspora protocol separation between authorship and ownership. In this model, the original poster is the rightful owner of all the replies that gets published in the thread they started. They are responsible with distributing replies to the original recipients, whether they follow each other or not, and can even delete replies as they see fit, and the deletion is propagated as well.
This avoids the current #Mastodon behavior where in a Follower-only conversation, each individual recipient may only see the original poster's replies to other people which own replies they didn't receive because they aren't following them.
With #ActivityPub, is there a way out of this half-private message, half-group conversation situation where only the original poster has a comprehensive view of limited privacy threads?
I wanted to publish a personal posts to my mutuals only which #Friendica allows, but I realized that any reply to it might not be visible to the other thread recipients, which means my own subsequent replies would be confusing for anyone's not directly following the person I'd reply to. And this has prevented me from actually writing my post.
This avoids the current #Mastodon behavior where in a Follower-only conversation, each individual recipient may only see the original poster's replies to other people which own replies they didn't receive because they aren't following them.
With #ActivityPub, is there a way out of this half-private message, half-group conversation situation where only the original poster has a comprehensive view of limited privacy threads?
I wanted to publish a personal posts to my mutuals only which #Friendica allows, but I realized that any reply to it might not be visible to the other thread recipients, which means my own subsequent replies would be confusing for anyone's not directly following the person I'd reply to. And this has prevented me from actually writing my post.
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
like this
debo, Eric Shields | π assTransitKrow, Isaac Kuo, natewaddoups, Scifijunkie, Tio and chava like this.
reshared this
mittorn, Sebastian Lasse, Steven Roose, Louis and Jan Vermeulen reshared this.
Hal
•Hypolite Petovan
•Hal
•Hypolite Petovan
•clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy πΈπͺππ°ππ likes this.
Dr. Quadragon β
•@zzz
Hypolite Petovan
•Hal
•I just want in Mastodon the ability to disable and delete replies to posts. Is that so much to ask?
Hypolite Petovan
•clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy πΈπͺππ°ππ likes this.
wakest β
•Mike Macgirvin
•Hal
•Yes but the discussion went nowhere https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/319
Disable replies Β· Issue #319 Β· w3c/activitypub
GitHubHypolite Petovan likes this.
wakest β
•Would be really good to get more eyes on this and more feedback as to what is good and what is not about the purposed solution.
FEP-5624: Per-object reply control policies
SocialHubHal
•I'm glad to see @trwnh has come around on the utility of this feature. I also entirely agree with them about this being something you likely want for all possible interactions.
The ability to disable replies / reactions / quotes / DMs / being mentioned, etc. I actually think the harms of QTs could be greatly mitigated if someone had to consent to being quoted.
infinite love β΄³
•Hal
•Ahem https://mastodon.social/@trwnh/104286827691231545
infinite love β΄³ (@trwnh@mastodon.social)
Mastodoninfinite love β΄³
•clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy πΈπͺππ°ππ likes this.
infinite love β΄³
•infinite love β΄³ (@trwnh@mastodon.social)
Mastodonclacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy πΈπͺππ°ππ likes this.
Hal
•I think the FEP is a step in the right direction, and much more considered than our reply thread. It also offers some hope that maybe even Mastodon will implement the proposal assuming it gets accepted.
Hal
•My only concern about the FEP is that the set of people who are allowed to reply ought to be left open-ended with the listed collections just being the ones a server SHOULD support.
I'll make a comment about this concern in the discussion thread so it could be recorded.
infinite love β΄³
•Hal
•My hope was supporting any collection so even something like a list of instances could be supported
infinite love β΄³
•Mike Macgirvin doesn't like this.
infinite love β΄³
•Hal
•What I actually want is to be able to have saved queries that can be referred to. But something like a community centered discussion is hard to promote without being able to refer to instances somehow.
wakest β
•infinite love β΄³
•wakest β
•Mike Macgirvin
•Brad Koehn βοΈ
•I spent an inordinate amount of time working on different federation models, and both Diasporaβs βparent federatesβ and Mastodonβs βchild federatesβ models have significant downsides when it comes to scale and graph consistency. It would be better if the servers could distribute federation via something akin to a forwarder that is purpose-built for scale (e.g., on a serverless environment).
Iβd really like to see what the Twitter team came up with as a hybrid to solve the problem. Itβs one of the most important problems to solve for a federated social network.
like this
Hypolite Petovan and clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy πΈπͺππ°ππ like this.
Hypolite Petovan
•Brad Koehn βοΈ
•Hypolite Petovan
•Mike Macgirvin
•Hypolite Petovan likes this.
wakest β reshared this.
Hypolite Petovan
•Mike Macgirvin
•FWIW, Friendica used to provide "mutuals only" comment permissions. The current devs removed it a few years ago in favor of Diaspora's and Mastdodon's "anybody can comment on anything public" philosophy. If you've spent any amount of time around decentralised messaging (that has been my life's work for about 45 years now) you'll instantly recognise this philosophy as a spam and harassment enabler which ultimately has to go. My own work uses 'commentPolicy' but I'm open to other suggestions. I'm also not crazy about the current FEP on the subject because it's completely over the top. FWIW, I don't see any need to express in a message that I am not going to accept comments in languages I... show more
FWIW, Friendica used to provide "mutuals only" comment permissions. The current devs removed it a few years ago in favor of Diaspora's and Mastdodon's "anybody can comment on anything public" philosophy. If you've spent any amount of time around decentralised messaging (that has been my life's work for about 45 years now) you'll instantly recognise this philosophy as a spam and harassment enabler which ultimately has to go. My own work uses 'commentPolicy' but I'm open to other suggestions. I'm also not crazy about the current FEP on the subject because it's completely over the top. FWIW, I don't see any need to express in a message that I am not going to accept comments in languages I don't understand or from right-wing activists. This doesn't serve any helpful purpose. But I do see a need to let you know that if we're not connected, your comment is not getting in my inbox no matter what language I speak or what content rules I might have in place.
Liwott likes this.
Isaac Kuo
•I think that the designers of Mastodon WANT to discourage interaction with posts. They purposefully don't have any quoting capability, which means you see random replies with zero context, and if you want to even try to see the comments on a post/reply, you need to click on them. And even when you click on them, you don't see the entire comment thread, you only see a subset.
Basically, it's all a bunch of friction to prevent people from interacting and making it more like chat or something. The principle is to discourage toxic interaction or something like that.
I think this may make sense from the perspective of a "celebrity" poster who won't be able to deal with high volume interaction anyway.
In contrast, the design philosophy of diaspora is to encourage interaction via the post+comment model. It lacks the repost+commentary mechanism, which I don't like but ... oh well ... it's a different design decision for a different attitude than what I care for.... show more
I think that the designers of Mastodon WANT to discourage interaction with posts. They purposefully don't have any quoting capability, which means you see random replies with zero context, and if you want to even try to see the comments on a post/reply, you need to click on them. And even when you click on them, you don't see the entire comment thread, you only see a subset.
Basically, it's all a bunch of friction to prevent people from interacting and making it more like chat or something. The principle is to discourage toxic interaction or something like that.
I think this may make sense from the perspective of a "celebrity" poster who won't be able to deal with high volume interaction anyway.
In contrast, the design philosophy of diaspora is to encourage interaction via the post+comment model. It lacks the repost+commentary mechanism, which I don't like but ... oh well ... it's a different design decision for a different attitude than what I care for.
I really love the repost+commentary mechanism in Tumblr, and the community collaborative creativity it fosters. However, I can understand the design philosophy that wishes to limit interaction to the post+comment model where poster moderation is doable. (In Tumblr, no one person "owns" the conversation, so there's no way for any one person to "moderate" it.)
Isaac Kuo
•natewaddoups
•If the technology supports it, then there's the question of getting users to adopt the practice; good UI for it would be necessary but admittedly not sufficient.
But it's a model that works reasonably well in vBulletin-style forums. Users all know that replies get rendered in series rather than in a tree, so people tend to use quoting to help their replies make sense. The drawbacks are extra steps in the compose process, and it takes a bit of skill / give-a-damn to do it right. It's a bit too easy to quote very large messages and then add two or three words, which isn't great for the signal-to-noise ratio.
Liwott likes this.
Hypolite Petovan
•Liwott
•I don't thiink it is desirable that the original poster have any kind of ownership right to someone else's posts. Imho, all the should be able to do is decoupling the comment (and it's subtree) from their thread
Hypolite Petovan
•This is also a way to decentralize moderation even further. No need to file a moderation report about a reply on your own posts violating your server's rules or even your own sensibility. It further empower users and encourages to curate follows as well.
clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy πΈπͺππ°ππ likes this.
Liwott
•The comment is itself a creation. Just because the owner does not think it fits their conversation does not mean the author has to lose their production or the ability to show it to their own followers.
However, I agree that it is better that the owner be responsible with distributing replies to the original recipients and that they be able to exclude a subtree from this procedure. But in that case I think the comment should be turned into a quote-share and normally distributed to its author's followers rather than deleted.
Hypolite Petovan
•Mastodon has a very opinionated approach to this by not allowing quoting posts in top-level publications, favoring direct replies, but not making the original author responsible for replies distribution either, which favors public posts.
Diaspora is the complete opposite, where direct boosts aren't allowed, other people's posts must be quoted in a new post, even if there's no additional content, and top-level authors have complete responsibility over the ensuing conversations. This favors limited-visibility publication scope and reacting to posts by quoting them in a new thread where you can have complete moderation control.
Your idea would be in-between those extremes.
Isaac Kuo
•Oh, BTW, I need to make a minor correction to what I said earlier about Tumblr. I forgot that a few years ago Tumblr added a comment feature. The original poster does "own" the conversation on the comments. So it's a hybrid system. However, the comment feature is sort of tacked on, and the comments aren't visible unless you click on the post.
The primary way "conversations" happen in Tumblr is via reblogs - often with added commentary. It's sort of like classic e-mail or USENET that way.
Brad Koehn βοΈ
•IIRC Mastodon will ignore delete messages associated to messages from another author.