If you're a white person on the Fediverse and you've never seen someone called a slur, or threats made against them--congratulations!

[azurekingfisher@mastodon.art]

@semitones @dave the harassers know where the Screenshots come from. They were part of the "interaction".

[kkarhan@infosec.space]

@dave bonus points when the victim is blocked and not able to report report said harrassment…

• They can even prevent admins from seeing the posts in question
  • This is a serious issue that #Mastodon #developers refuse to address, alongside the unwillingness to address basic features that every other internet-facing application has, like blocklist feed support…

[leeloo@c.im]

@dragonfrog @dave
How about "followers of the author of the original post that started the thread"? "Followers of anyone mentioned" is going to take a lot of queries to different servers to get the list of followers - and some instances may not even make the list available for privacy reasons. Followers of the OP could be done by having such replies go through the OPs instance.

Having followers only replies gobthrough the OPs instance would be more eork for the developers, but the current solution is useless for replies, because two people with distinct sets of followers having a followers only discussion are going to sound like listening to one half of a phone conversation.

[kkarhan@infosec.space]

@MxAlba @dalias @dave The #Mastodon #Developers are just evidently unwilling to address these issues…

[fishidwardrobe@mastodon.me.uk]

@julesbl @dave i'm bemused by the assertion that followers-only is useful as it is. i've got no use for it, and i don't understand what use there could be

[fishidwardrobe@mastodon.me.uk]

@MxAlba @dave and then the admins of sensible instances would block that instance.

while true, this is not an argument against.

[fishidwardrobe@mastodon.me.uk]

@raphaelmorgan @JessTheUnstill@infosec.exchange @Crissa @dave so, just a dogpile from your followers, then?

[julesbl@mastodon.me.uk]

@fishidwardrobe @dave
Me too, i don't get it either, perhaps someone can explain?
Found quite a good article on allied problems and possible solutions
https://privacy.thenexus.today/social-threat-modeling-and-quote-boosts/

[crissa@meow.social]

@JessTheUnstill @dave
But why should this limit who the thread source can show it to? Why should you have control over showing it to (from their perspective) randos, and not the person who's being replied to?

Being able to hide it from *their* followers - what legitimate purpose does that serve?

[fishidwardrobe@mastodon.me.uk]

@julesbl @dave i suppose it's true what they say: if you build a social network you will have no idea how to use that network.

[mc_chouffe@mamot.fr]

@dave it never occured to me that the "followers only" setting could be used that way. Wouldn't it make more sense if the replies automatically followed the same restrictions as the original message ? You've chosen to reply to a public message, you follow the rule set by the author of the message.

[fishidwardrobe@mastodon.me.uk]

@shlee @dave okay, that makes sense. thank you for explaining.

[alexadeswift@lgbtqia.space]

@dave

This is unfortunately something that I have seen, certainly on Black Mastodon along with Trans Mastodon.

Often black Fediversians will be on the receiving end of racism and will rightly call out white Fediversians for not pushing back against it. Unfortunately we typically cannot do that as we simply cannot see the bigots and their bigotry, often because of either the way they are posting and/or the admins of the instances we are in defedding from problematic instances and blocking bigots.

It does seem to be less of an issue on trans and LGBTQ Fedi and Mastodon, probably due to so many of us being on instances explicitly run by and for LGBTQ folx.

Unfortunately, that is not an option for everyone, and I have wracked my brains as to how we can stop all racism and other bigotry.

[patrick@retro.social]

@dave That sounds like a defect of the "followers only" mechanism… Maybe we should modify its behavior to not reply to non-followers? That way, only mutuals can join in the harassment (instead of all followers of the original instigator), and an unfollow shuts things down, too.

[jmax@mastodon.social]

@dave ty

[markus_quandt@mastodon.green]

@dave I honestly had not understood that before, thanks for explaining.

[toothpaste_sandwich@mastodon.nl]

@kkarhan @dave I'm not sure if I read this bug report as "unwillingness". No actual replies from any developers is not ideal, but it's different from a hard no.

[kkarhan@infosec.space]

@toothpaste_sandwich @dave I consider the maintainers closing a valid issue as unwillingness…

[dalias@hachyderm.io]

@Rhube @MxAlba @dave I think you misread because the above has no impact on public posts without any reply restrictions. It would be part of the long requested reply control features one could use if you want to limit who can reply to you. And one very useful limitiation would be "you can't change the scope of who the post is visible to".

[dalias@hachyderm.io]

@gunchleoc @dave That would be another useful control, control of who can @ you outside a reply context.