If Alice makes a followers-only post, and Bob replies to it, to whom should Bob's reply be visible?
-
@liilliil what does it look like to Bob's followers if he chooses his followers, or his and Alice's followers?
@evan That's Bob's problem now, not ours!
-
@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 Maybe it would be better to rephrase this question as: If you post a followers-only post, who do you expect to get replies from?
I'm getting the sense that some people are more interested in getting into other people's business than respecting boundaries. Hence the strong opposition to reply controls.
"But what about my right to share my unwanted opinion" vs respecting how other people want to interact online.
-
@evan other -> the intersection of Alice and Bob’s followers.
-
@evan other -> the intersection of Alice and Bob’s followers.
@steely_glint so, as a conversation continues, the audience gets smaller and smaller and smaller?
-
@evan but Alice wanted her followers and only her followers to see the original post, right? So is it an invasion of the public circle that comprises those followers to spread out further via Bob's reply? Note that I'm very carefully avoiding the word "private". These are limited public spaces.
The only conclusion I can reach is that the ability to post to followers only, since anybody can follow anybody, blocks excepted, is to impose a sort of embargo on what is still a public expression.
Restricting the audience of a post will slow its distribution but it can in no way be assumed to prevent it.
So I'm going to opt for the two groups of followers, since while Alice might not that intend her message reach others, it inevitably will. Limiting the expansion of the message reach in this way seems to balance Alice's expectations with the need to avoid creating echo chambers.
But Fedi users also need to be informed, constantly, that these are public forums.
-
@evan This is a good one and a common mapping exercise. Many services don't think this through and / or opt for an odd and challenging option of Bob's followers getting the visibility to it, which pretty much breaks the “followers only” intent of the original poster.
I’ve walk through this in a couple workshops around researching in social media as following the shadows of social media. You can't see a person, but you can see their shadows and essence of their moves and existence.
-
It doesn't seem misleading
Did you try to look at it from end-user's perspective?
I'm writing a reply to someone's followers-only post. The form shows me "Visible for followers only". How isn't it misleading for me?
When I do that as a post from the same form, my followers see that.Why should I expect anything else when writing a reply with such option enabled?
-
Ideally —
...
For the former —
From a UX point of view, they (Bob's followers who don't yet follow Alice) could see a placeholder post for Alice's post(s), that says that the content cannot be shown.
If a follower of Bob's then followed Alice, then the placeholder post(s) would turn into the actual post(s).
...
For the latter —
Again, from a UX point of view — Placeholder posts, until they follow Alice or Bob.
.
@reiver so, like sitting in a room with someone while they talk on the phone, and you only hear their side of the conversation.
-
@evan In Friendica we have got the rule that the thread starter decides the audience. Especially when someone posts just to a selected group of people, we put then in
ccand then the reply will go to all actors inccas well. -
@evan Maybe it would be better to rephrase this question as: If you post a followers-only post, who do you expect to get replies from?
I'm getting the sense that some people are more interested in getting into other people's business than respecting boundaries. Hence the strong opposition to reply controls.
"But what about my right to share my unwanted opinion" vs respecting how other people want to interact online.
Great idea; you should make that poll.
-
@steely_glint so, as a conversation continues, the audience gets smaller and smaller and smaller?
@evan probably. I don’t see that as an intrinsic problem. The constant broadening of the audience is one of the vices of commercial social media. Maybe Bob has 2 options , Alice’s followers or the (smaller) intersection. But he shouldn’t be able to widen it against Alice’s intent.
-
@evan This is a good one and a common mapping exercise. Many services don't think this through and / or opt for an odd and challenging option of Bob's followers getting the visibility to it, which pretty much breaks the “followers only” intent of the original poster.
I’ve walk through this in a couple workshops around researching in social media as following the shadows of social media. You can't see a person, but you can see their shadows and essence of their moves and existence.
@vanderwal actually, most social networks default to having Bob's reply visible to Alice's followers. That is how followers-only posts work on X, Instagram, and Facebook.
-
Great idea; you should make that poll.
@evan Sure!
Does this wording make sense?
When you post a followers-only post, who do you expect replies from?
My own followers (MOF)
MOF + repliers' followers (RF)
Mutual MOF + RF only
Something else?(Trying to be concise!)
-
@evan The most common situation where one of my follows makes a follower-only post is where they're asking for advice, help or sympathy for a personal issue. I don't want my own followers to see my reply, as that could expose sensitive details about the issue. But I do want the OP's followers to see it, so that we all know what support we've already offered and can avoid spamming them with unnecessary information.
-
@vanderwal actually, most social networks default to having Bob's reply visible to Alice's followers. That is how followers-only posts work on X, Instagram, and Facebook.
@evan Oh, I know. It makes keeping tabs on people wishing to be quiet or unseen more visible. It really breaks the "for followers only" intent a badly broken promise and rather dishonest at the worst and poorly (or not even) thought through at the lightest.
-
@evan In Friendica we have got the rule that the thread starter decides the audience. Especially when someone posts just to a selected group of people, we put then in
ccand then the reply will go to all actors inccas well.@heluecht it seems like a pretty good rule of thumb.
-
Restricting the audience of a post will slow its distribution but it can in no way be assumed to prevent it.
So I'm going to opt for the two groups of followers, since while Alice might not that intend her message reach others, it inevitably will. Limiting the expansion of the message reach in this way seems to balance Alice's expectations with the need to avoid creating echo chambers.
But Fedi users also need to be informed, constantly, that these are public forums.
@evan Finally, isn't "Bob's followers exclusively" the definition of sub-posting? I might not understand it correctly so please do correct me if not.
On a side note I've been trying to shift towards the word "exclusively" to avoid ambiguity since I learned all too recently that the word "only" is sometimes used for emphasis in Indian English, and since I have not yet mastered that usage.
-
@evan this is a tough one. From a theoretical perspective I'd have gone with "Bob's followers" because each post is a post in its own right and the fact that it happens to have a reply on top shoudn't change that. (Which is also how it works today, right?)
But seeing too many fragmented conversations has made me think that in practical terms it's better to have replies "inherit" viewership from the starting post—i.e. Bob's post is visible to Alice's followers
-
@evan this is a tough one. From a theoretical perspective I'd have gone with "Bob's followers" because each post is a post in its own right and the fact that it happens to have a reply on top shoudn't change that. (Which is also how it works today, right?)
But seeing too many fragmented conversations has made me think that in practical terms it's better to have replies "inherit" viewership from the starting post—i.e. Bob's post is visible to Alice's followers
@evan a related interesting question to think about: if Bob's reply is visible to Alice's followers, and Alice later gets a new follower, should Bob's post automatically visible to that new follower too?
-
@evan I know Alice. Alice is fedi-famous. WTF is Bob?
