If Alice makes a followers-only post, and Bob replies to it, to whom should Bob's reply be visible?
-
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?
-
@steely_glint @evan I like it. It's a good solution. But it does risk burying dissent in some corner cases.
-
@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.
Your condescension is unearned.
-
@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.
@ZenHeathen so, for Bob's followers, "Yes" with no context is worthwhile and interesting? That's what they followed Bob for -- to hear his half of a private conversation?
-
@evan I'd argue it should be visible to the intersection, not the union of Alice and Bob's followers. So basically people who follow both of them. There should also be an option to have it be visible to all of Alice's followers.
@LunaDragofelis @evan I think we have two different mental models about discussions on Mastodon (and social media more generally). And different people use different mental models, yet often assume everyone else sees things the way they do..
One model sees a “thread” or a “discussion” as belonging to the person who created the first note and sees subsequent reply notes linked to the thread as being part of Alice’s (the original note’s author) thread. The other model sees a thread as a collection of individual notes, linked together, with each reply note in the discussion belonging to the reply’s author.
In the model where Bob and Carol and Dawn and Eve are just replying to Alice’s thread, one might expect those reply Notes to go to whatever group of people Alice had originally sent her note to. In the model where each author owns their own notes, one would expect reply Notes to honor the audience specified in the reply Note itself.
The confusion is made worse because the audience settings mean different things in different circumstances, and none of the clients are yet showing what those audiences actually mean for any given Note. -
Your condescension is unearned.
@evan It isn't intended as condescension. The common saying of "you can't know until you know" applies. Until you run across what you can unsee or unthink it isn't a possibility.
The Kathy Sierra debacle that was the final push that got Twitter to have their private accounts in the manner the put in place (as a stop gap) was a brutal wake-up call for many. The frailty of that system also was problematic and those, like Kathy, ended up leaving in the tens of thousands.
-
@evan I think both is a problem because if we keep going, the conversation will be among a very different public each time anyone answers. Same for "Bob's".
I put "something else", but I wish I put "Alice's".
@mdione yeah, keeping the audience pretty much the same as the conversation grows seems very natural to me, too.
-
-
Your condescension is unearned.
@evan I was a little surprised by the flippant family doesn't complain, to be honest.
I am saying all of this to help. Please take it as that.
-
@evan
Eve -
@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.
@ZenHeathen @evan
Yes it should. It's Alice's conversation. Only Alice's followers if she marked it thusExcept Mastodon will show it to anyone mentioned by bob. Which is broken. Even if it was private to Alice and Bob.
-
Your condescension is unearned.
@evan Oh, I could have worded it a bit better. My sinuses are ripped up and hurting, which is not a great time to be at keyboard attached to a social platform.
-
@evan those following both Alice and Bob
-
@panos oh, yeah, it's terribly dangerous and rude. It's a good idea for Fediverse software to hide or disable that option. But the protocol allows it. (So does email. You can add in other people or even a mailing list to a private email conversation at any time.)
-
@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.
@vanderwal so, I think I see where we went askew here.
You said, "Most services get this wrong and make the replies visible to B's followers only."
I disagreed, "Most services get this *right* and make the replies visible to A's followers only."
I don't think we disagree about the right way to do it -- we disagree if services actually do it that way.
I am not sure why you think they don't. As far as I can tell, X, Instagram and Facebook all make replies visible to A's followers.
-
@vanderwal so, I think I see where we went askew here.
You said, "Most services get this wrong and make the replies visible to B's followers only."
I disagreed, "Most services get this *right* and make the replies visible to A's followers only."
I don't think we disagree about the right way to do it -- we disagree if services actually do it that way.
I am not sure why you think they don't. As far as I can tell, X, Instagram and Facebook all make replies visible to A's followers.
@vanderwal I also agree that making B's responses visible to all of A's followers can be a problem.
Especially in families and friends groups, A might approve both B and C as followers, but B might not want anything to do with C. C might be an ex-lover or a racist uncle or whatever.
Unfortunately, when we sever connections, not all of our friends and family do, too.
-
@vanderwal I also agree that making B's responses visible to all of A's followers can be a problem.
Especially in families and friends groups, A might approve both B and C as followers, but B might not want anything to do with C. C might be an ex-lover or a racist uncle or whatever.
Unfortunately, when we sever connections, not all of our friends and family do, too.
Respecting blocks fixes this, obviously. But sometimes there are cases where B doesn't know C follows A, and hasn't blocked them.
I think giving B some options for replies -- reply privately to A, reply to same audience -- makes sense.
I don't think making replies visible to B's followers only is the answer, though.
-
@evan if "mutuals only" were a visibility option, then I'd be okay with reconsidering "followers only" visibility.
@mayintoronto @evan Yes, this! I know many people would love “mutuals only” posts. I would definitely use that more than “followers only”
-
@evan those following both Alice and Bob
@flippac so, the conversation audience keeps getting smaller and smaller?
-
@mayintoronto @evan Yes, this! I know many people would love “mutuals only” posts. I would definitely use that more than “followers only”
@stephaniepixie @mayintoronto I think "followers only" only makes sense if you manually approve followers.
