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

@evan Finally, isn't "Bob's followers exclusively" the definition of sub-posting? I might not understand it correctly so please do correct me if not.

On a side note I've been trying to shift towards the word "exclusively" to avoid ambiguity since I learned all too recently that the word "only" is sometimes used for emphasis in Indian English, and since I have not yet mastered that usage.

@evan this is a tough one. From a theoretical perspective I'd have gone with "Bob's followers" because each post is a post in its own right and the fact that it happens to have a reply on top shoudn't change that. (Which is also how it works today, right?)

But seeing too many fragmented conversations has made me think that in practical terms it's better to have replies "inherit" viewership from the starting post—i.e. Bob's post is visible to Alice's followers

@evan a related interesting question to think about: if Bob's reply is visible to Alice's followers, and Alice later gets a new follower, should Bob's post automatically visible to that new follower too?

@evan I know Alice. Alice is fedi-famous. WTF is Bob?

@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 I think both is a problem because if we keep going, the conversation will be among a very different public each time anyone answers. Same for "Bob's".

I put "something else", but I wish I put "Alice's".

@vanderwal

Private posts let you have intimate conversations with people you know. They are a great way that people share personal updates with their family and friends. They enable connection.

I have never, ever, *ever* seen anyone on Instagram complain about their comments on a private photo being visible to other followers.

@adam @evan and of course Alice and Bob, right? (what if the following is not reciprocal

@steely_glint @evan

That's kind of a neat solution.

It's all public in the long run of course, so everybody needs to keep that in mind.

@evan @reiver I'm not yet sure if I like the idea of placeholder posts or not, but I do find the idea intriguing

@evan
It should be visible to the original set as Alice shared the post with her followers, not followers of followers (light blue segment of set diagram). Any of Bob’s followers that also follow Alice will see the post and replies anyway. See comments on set diagram and post about the set theory maths/model - https://mastodon.social/@dahukanna/116030140984675453

@dahukanna omg!!

@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.

@vanderwal show me the data.

@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.

@spraoi @evan true, but this is about etiquette not privacy I feel. Compare it with the old (unspoken) rules about passing on a friend’s phone number.

@skobkin I always read it as "visible for the OPs followers" like it's implied that "followers only" is applied to the root of the thread.

But after our previous discussion this can definitely be clarified
@evan

@vanderwal @evan

I’ve always modeled this information architecture challenge as a set theory maths problem & the answer is the original set regardless of who is replying, as the original poster chose limiting constraint conditions + selected members of the group to access to conversation thread.
Plus there are “n” Bobs, where “n” is the number of Alice’s followers, some of those may not have intersecting followers - so why should they see Bob’s reply to an original post they can’t see/access?

@steely_glint @evan

So that etiquette would demand that Bob limit the visibility of his reply to just Alice, and let her decide how far it should reach beyond that. There's a certain grace there, but does the etiquette of telephony translate to microblogging?

@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.