If Alice makes a followers-only post, and Bob replies to it, to whom should Bob's reply be visible?

@adam @evan

Alice started the thread, so in this context, we respect her communication style choices for that post and everything that follows underneath it

if Bob can come in and hijack the conversation with their communication style, this is disrespectful to Alice

in the context of a thread Alice started, we respect Alice's communication style, and no one else's

this is the most responsible approach

@evan To Alice's followers by default. But possible to restrict to the intersection with Bob's followers if Bob wishes.

@evan The answer is go back to LiveJournal and Alice gets to decide. If her post is fully public, anyone can comment on it. If it's private and Bob is in a group of people she shared it with, only Bob and the people in that group can see the post and comment. Now if Bob wants to make a copy of her post and share it privately this his group of friends, that's his business but then he's probably not a very good friend.

@evan @maj that's my answer too, i.e. "Alice's friends", since that's Alice's original intent, a conversation among her friends.

There are advantages to having Bob's reply go to only Alice first, who then fans it out to her followers. For example, it allows full reply controls. It also allows semi-anonymous replies, where Alice can see that Bob sent it but no one else can. This is useful when Bob doesn't want to reveal himself (his profile etc.) to all friends of friends, and it still protects against abuse because Alice still knows it's Bob.

The main disadvantage of routing all replies through Alice's device first is that Alice has to be online for the conversation to continue as it happens. However, Alice could have a trusted (!) server handle the fanning out instead, assuming she doesn't need to manually approve replies.

My social media app FriendSafe routes all replies through the OP (Alice) first. It allows those semi-anonymous replies but doesn't have reply controls now (but it could).

@mhoye @evan

if i go into your house, i respect the pile of shoes at the front door, and take off my own

the idea there is someone who doesn't understand this obvious thing: i am a guest in *your* thread, is not anyone else's problem

so, yes: some things are obvious

i won't trudge into your house with my dirty shoes. if someone else does, that's something obvious they don't understand they should understand

they can be delicately reprimanded. and they learn. end of problem

@raymaccarthy Alice shouldn't get to choose the privacy of Bob's words. As I said, Bob's followers shouldn't be able to scroll up to see Alice's words, but there's no reason that Alice should be able to ensure that Bob's followers can't see Bob's words. They're not her words, it's not her choice, just as Bob shouldn't get to choose who gets to see Alice's words. @evan

@maj @evan Border case: What happens if Bob marks his reply visible to only his followers, but Alice does not follow Bob? Should Alice see Bob's reply?

@evan I think there should be 2 settings: "followers only" and "followers cascade" (or something).

The first restricts it to Alice's followers only. So Bob's reply is not visible to any of his followers that are not also Alice's followers.
The second is visible only to Alice's followers when posted but becomes visible to all Bob's followers once he replies.

This second setting would probably more safe than a general public post, based on the birds of a feather hypothesis, but less safe than the first.

I an ideal world, where everyone behaves themselves, all posts should be public for all. I'm going to take a nap now until that happens. Wake me up when it comes.

@evan to put this another way: we either have a notion of somebody's "space" as opposed to just their account, or we don't - and currently we don't just as xitter doesn't

if we don't have "space" to post to, what I'm suggesting is the most privacy-preserving option

i'd be entirely cool with adding a notion of spaces and everybody having one of their own by default ("communities" being another example that's not always owned by exactly one account), except if we've got that far i want the option of "exactly these people" filters too

@evan

My vote was based on current implementation and explanation of same to users.

However, if we ask "ought" rather than "should" (principle rather than expectation), then reply visibility would be contingent on the propinquity of followers to both Alice and Bob, which is to say, not all of either interlocutor's followers would see the post, but rather visibility would be a function of relationship weights with each follower across both participants in the exchange.

@evan It should obviously be visible to Eve.

@evan It is Alice's post and conversation. If Bob wants other people to know what was said, he's able to do his own post to his followers.
I don't even like the idea of 'followers only' posts. Use email or direct messages if it's that 'special'.

@evan @mhoye that branch of it, yes.

@evan

I selected other. I feel that Bob's post's visibility should be defined by Bob's settings for that post.

Followers of Bob that don't also follow Alice could see his reply and know that it was a reply to something else, but they'd not see what it was in reply to.

Conceptual parallel: one can comment publicly on copyright protected material that others may not be able to see. one can also comment publicly on classified info (there may be penalties for doing so, but it can be done).

@ZenHeathen @evan
She should if she started a non-universal conversation.

Bob can post his replay also to his followers, but that is certainly not cricket.

@jmcclure yes, of course it should be defined by Bob's settings.

But what settings should be available to him? And what should be the default? Most of all, what should he choose?

@maj @evan yep, my explanation is that Alice started a followers-only conversation. From that perspective the behaviour is natural.

@raymaccarthy It's a microblogging platform, not a blog, and not a forum where one can make a post and control who can post under it. Alice can control her post and who sees it, and can control for herself who's posts she sees, but she should not have any control over what anyone else's posts. You cannot convince me on this point. Alice controls Alice's posts, Bob controls Bob's posts, Alice must not be allowed to control Bob's posts and Bob must not be allowed to control Alice's posts. Period. @evan

@benroyce@mastodon.social @evan@cosocial.ca this idea occurred to me, but in general I think this hardly ever actually matters in practice.

If Bob is the kind of person to fake screenshots, then everyone, especially Alice, will presumably block him.

I could be wrong on this, but it seems to me like a trick you can only pull once, and not that impressive of one.

And if I'm right that fake screenshots isn't an important attack vector, then there isn't much difference between sharing the post and sharing the screenshot of it.

@evan

Forgive me if I'm missing something here, but I can't quite square the original poll options with "of course it should be defined by Bob's settings".

My thought was that and / all settings that Bob would ever have for his own posts should be available to him, and the default should be whatever his default normally is.

Essentially, (my view is) the fact that Bob's post is in reply to something else is beside the point: Bob's post is Bob's post, just like any other he'd make.