It is depressing if someone experiences hate on here, especially if it puts them off using this place.
-
Hey, thanks for pulling me into this discussion
I loved this FediTips article, and everything it advocates - especially issues of representation and culture here.
I have some opinions on reply controls and moderation, but I've been mostly a follower on the existing FEPs
I think @julian@community.nodebb.org is probably the leader on this topic.
If there's somewhere I can add, please let me know and I'm happy to help out.
-
@julian By the way, I'm guessing you've tried reaching out to the Mastodon team?
How do you actually propose a feature?
I think it would be nice to add a weight to the timeline so that user accounts show up at the top. Most accounts I follow don't post as often as the hastags I follow so they tend to get lost in the soup.
I think of it similar to telling your file explorer to list the folders first kind of thing.
-
Hey, thanks for pulling me into this discussion
I loved this FediTips article, and everything it advocates - especially issues of representation and culture here.
I have some opinions on reply controls and moderation, but I've been mostly a follower on the existing FEPs
I think @julian@community.nodebb.org is probably the leader on this topic.
If there's somewhere I can add, please let me know and I'm happy to help out.
@benpate If you don't particularly feel like getting deep into it, I can just ping you when the FEP is up in the public repository as a draft, if you want. There'll be the normal public feedback period after it's at a point where all the important parts are in place.
Right now I'm looking for close collaboration on architecture, impact analysis, maybe UI recommendations, and general writing. If that doesn't sound appealing then no worries.
@julian@activitypub.space if you want in on this let me know!
-
@benpate If you don't particularly feel like getting deep into it, I can just ping you when the FEP is up in the public repository as a draft, if you want. There'll be the normal public feedback period after it's at a point where all the important parts are in place.
Right now I'm looking for close collaboration on architecture, impact analysis, maybe UI recommendations, and general writing. If that doesn't sound appealing then no worries.
@julian@activitypub.space if you want in on this let me know!
Let me lurk, just to see where this is heading? It's one area where I want to do a much better job in my own software. I just know that others have SO MUCH more experience here than I do, and this is a topic where I need to listen before I speak
-
Let me lurk, just to see where this is heading? It's one area where I want to do a much better job in my own software. I just know that others have SO MUCH more experience here than I do, and this is a topic where I need to listen before I speak
@benpate Fine by me!
Only there isn't a place to lurk yet because the possibility of including others in the writing process occurred to me just a few hours ago. Still gotta decide where we hunker down after I know if it's just going to be me, you, and @stefan, or if there are going to be more people wanting to help out.I think I want some sort of chat room for this, and a live document. Maybe CryptPad can render Markdown?
-
- Users not being able to control who can reply to their posts
The Fediverse having thousands of independent servers is one of its greatest strengths (https://fedi.tips/why-is-the-fediverse-on-so-many-separate-servers) but also causes whack-a-mole problems when trying to block hate.
If users could pre-emptively restrict who can reply to their post, e.g. followers-only, this would prevent hatemongers from random unblocked servers posting nasty replies.
Github users can vote for this at https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/14762
🧵 Thread - Part 3 of 7
@FediTips #GoToSocial already has this.
-
- Moderation being reactive rather than proactive
Mastodon moderation currently relies on reports of bad behaviour: something bad happens, someone reports it to moderators.
If there was a system to automatically alert moderators to certain keywords, they could respond much more quickly to hate posts (and spam and many other problems too).
The mods would still be human, they would just be alerted more quickly.
Github users can vote for this at https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/21306
🧵 Thread - Part 4 of 7
@FediTips That's an interesting idea, but it must be very cleverly made, because there are many ways to circumvent any pattern filter.
-
@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.
