It is depressing if someone experiences hate on here, especially if it puts them off using this place.
-
@stefan I actually haven't yet, lol. You're right though, if we're making this a little social club then might as well.
@andypiper, @renchap, @dave You've mentioned you're working on reply controls too (as more of a distant thing if I remember right), so of course if anyone on the team would like to be part of the FEP process, I'm happy to have you.@julian This is on our roadmap, but we want to do it by considering the user experience first, and it's full of edge cases. Also one of the big (huge) question is: who can approve a reply? Right now with the GTS proposal it would be the post from `inReplyTo`. This makes sense on an AP/implementation level (and not too hard), but is not obvious if you consider the user experience.
Adding @Claire
@stefan @andypiper @dave -
@julian This is on our roadmap, but we want to do it by considering the user experience first, and it's full of edge cases. Also one of the big (huge) question is: who can approve a reply? Right now with the GTS proposal it would be the post from `inReplyTo`. This makes sense on an AP/implementation level (and not too hard), but is not obvious if you consider the user experience.
Adding @Claire
@stefan @andypiper @dave@julian So we need to consider if we want to switch to a "thread context”-based approval model, there the author of the root of the thread controls all the tree of replies. Which would be a big change for Mastodon (and similar implementations), but might be more aligned with what user want, and solve other issues as well (replies federation).
But that would be a *huge* undertaking, with lot of problems related to backward compatibility (for example)
@Claire @stefan @andypiper @dave -
@julian So we need to consider if we want to switch to a "thread context”-based approval model, there the author of the root of the thread controls all the tree of replies. Which would be a big change for Mastodon (and similar implementations), but might be more aligned with what user want, and solve other issues as well (replies federation).
But that would be a *huge* undertaking, with lot of problems related to backward compatibility (for example)
@Claire @stefan @andypiper @daveI really appreciate you thinking about this. The federation, the biggest advantage of the Fediverse, is also its biggest weakness when it comes to moderation. Regarding the thread-based model: I believe this is the method used by Fediverse applications outside of Mastodon. Mike MacGirvin has replicated much of what is used in the Hubzilla/streams project (including this thread-context-based model and nomadic identity) in ActivityPub in the Forte project. It might be helpful to take a look at this project.
@julian @Claire @stefan @andypiper @dave
@pepecyb
@jupiter_rowland -
@julian Thank you for taking this up!
I don't really have any experience with writing technical proposals, and my understanding of ActivityPub is not super deep.
But you are right, this is something I would really love to see implemented by more fediverse platforms, especially Mastodon.
What would be the best way to help here?
-
-
Seems like a great project and would love to help ... but yeah, realistically not for the next month or so. I had a 6000+ word post about "Mastodon, what next" almost ready to go on January 12 when the session started ... and it's still almost ready to go
-
-
@FediTips Re: reply controls.
GoToSocial came up with a way (https://docs.gotosocial.org/en/latest/federation/interaction_controls/) to do this. It doesn't “solve” malicious servers, but it lets benevolent servers honor each other's inhabitants' wishes.
I'm drafting a “Fediverse Enhancement Proposal” document to make it easier for other projects to join GTS. It's progressing, but I have day job stuff etc. It might help to add a few collaborators.
Anyone comfortable w/ technical specs similar to this https://fediverse.codeberg.page/fep/fep/044f/ & want to help?
This is fantastic!
I think this kind of feature is useful even if it can be circumvented, because deliberate circumvention would show a sign of bad intent and arguably be cause for account suspension or instance defederation.
It's similar to the situation with block evasion, which is often used to suspend or defederate as it shows bad intent by the evaders.
-
This is fantastic!
I think this kind of feature is useful even if it can be circumvented, because deliberate circumvention would show a sign of bad intent and arguably be cause for account suspension or instance defederation.
It's similar to the situation with block evasion, which is often used to suspend or defederate as it shows bad intent by the evaders.
@FediTips Yes, social enforcement will likely play a role. We'll see if we can put something solid together!
-
@FediTips That's an interesting idea, but it must be very cleverly made, because there are many ways to circumvent any pattern filter.
There are always ways to circumvent, but someone doing that shows bad intent and makes it easier to just ban them.
This happens currently with block evasion, people get suspended purely for the act of block evasion because it shows bad intent.
So, even imperfect systems are very useful
-
@FediTips #GoToSocial already has this.
-
Yes, that's true.
