@evan I’ve always leaned toward having A's wishes respected as a first order priority.

I've worked to help platforms work through options for B to respond in a manner (it was a two tiered response model) where the one to A is clear, but one that filters out A from the response (either as script to remove it, or giving B the option for a public version).

These options were never implimented.

I know Traction software (for enterprise and “secure" focussed organizations) did this really well.

@evan Twitter / X have public replies from B visible to A's followers as they are open. But, B's followers can see the response, which is where things get to be problematic.

I wasn't intending to say only B's followers saw the reply, but that they could see the response to a private account.

Marketers, stalkers, and worse have easy pickings in that model.

What @dahukanna lays out in the venn diagram is the good approach.

@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 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 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 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.

@dahukanna @evan Yes! This! This has always been the right answer.

The simplicity in this venn diagram is the “yes" is only Alice's followers.

@evan Because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they aren't out their in abundance. Doing simple user research you quickly find this model is really problematic for people thinking they were private, it is an amazing tool for stalkers to take advantage of and oh they do. The stories are abundant and can be brutal.

Following bad practices and putting people at risk isn't great. People are looking for a better social platform that has their wishes upheld, not another that breaks them.

@evan With early Twitter as they were releasing their “private" option this was discussed a lot. At the time keeping servers up was a primary concern. The reply model they have was intended to be fixed, but never was.

@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 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.