I know this is already on Mastodon team's radar, but I do want to stress how important this feature is.
-
-
I know this is already on Mastodon team's radar, but I do want to stress how important this feature is.
https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/14762
We won't get rid of the racism and the mansplaining on the fediverse overnight, but giving people control over their replies would significantly improve everyone's experience, and make this place a lot more inviting.
@stefan we already have reply controls. Every object has a `replies` collection that is managed by the author's server. If a) remote servers only use that collection for showing replies and b) the local server lets the user curate the collection, it just works.
-
-
@stefan we already have reply controls. Every object has a `replies` collection that is managed by the author's server. If a) remote servers only use that collection for showing replies and b) the local server lets the user curate the collection, it just works.
@evan Sorry, not sure I'm following. Are you saying AP already supports this, but fediverse platforms (other than maybe goToSocial) haven't implemented it?
-
@evan Sorry, not sure I'm following. Are you saying AP already supports this, but fediverse platforms (other than maybe goToSocial) haven't implemented it?
Yes, AP has the mechanisms to support it, and I think the specific vocabulary is largely agreed on (there's a FEP, not sure where it is in the process).
It's frustrating that the perception of AP, and current reality of most AP-based software, is so shaped by Mastodon's specific implementation. On the one hand Mastodon's adoption was key to the success of AP, but on the other hand Mastodon's specific choices (also including not adopting C2S) have been less than helpful. Oh well, it is what it is, and hopefully thanks are changing (both with Mastodon and with the broader fediverse)
-
Yes, AP has the mechanisms to support it, and I think the specific vocabulary is largely agreed on (there's a FEP, not sure where it is in the process).
It's frustrating that the perception of AP, and current reality of most AP-based software, is so shaped by Mastodon's specific implementation. On the one hand Mastodon's adoption was key to the success of AP, but on the other hand Mastodon's specific choices (also including not adopting C2S) have been less than helpful. Oh well, it is what it is, and hopefully thanks are changing (both with Mastodon and with the broader fediverse)
@thenexusofprivacy @evan Ah, yes, this does sound familiar, thank you both for reminding me!
-
@graue Yeah, I've said this on a few occasions, but I wish they prioritized this over post quotes. But not my call to make, I suppose.
-
If I understand correctly, the way it's going to work is similar to quote posts, something along the lines of
1) the server hosting the account making the reply sends a request to the server of the account being replied to asking whether it's okay to reply
2) the server with the account being replied to says "ok" or "nope"
Obviously this only works with cooperative software ... but that's also true with stuff like DMs and followers-only posts, so it comes with the territory here. Compatibility with older Mastodon versions, and other platforms that haven't implemented reply controls yet (or do it in a different way) is likely to be challenging -- as it is for quote posts. It's all a lot trickier than it sounds!
BTW, there was a similar transition back in 2016/7 when Mastodon unilaterally unlisted and followers-only posts got implemented. It was quite rocky for a while, but over time things moved forward. Stuff like this is a real challenge with interpoperable software in general, and decentralization only makes things more complex, but the other alterantivve is stagnation -- which is a lot worse. This is badly-needed functionality so it's great that it's happening.
@thenexusofprivacy @stefan “Obviously this only works with cooperative software ... but that's also true with stuff like DMs and followers-only posts, so it comes with the territory here.”
No, followers-only and DM *do not* require cooperation from other software because there is never any public link.
When designing peer to peer protocols, it is inadequate to offer users a guarantee which you cannot fulfill. The predictable results are software which doesn’t work as advertised & angry users.
-
I know this is already on Mastodon team's radar, but I do want to stress how important this feature is.
https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/14762
We won't get rid of the racism and the mansplaining on the fediverse overnight, but giving people control over their replies would significantly improve everyone's experience, and make this place a lot more inviting.
What I would love to see in addition is an Approve Reply function, to completely eliminate the echo chamber and allow a wider diversity of appropriate replies. Only allowing @-mentions and @-followers severely limits the chance for good, broad conversation.
-
@thenexusofprivacy @stefan “Obviously this only works with cooperative software ... but that's also true with stuff like DMs and followers-only posts, so it comes with the territory here.”
No, followers-only and DM *do not* require cooperation from other software because there is never any public link.
When designing peer to peer protocols, it is inadequate to offer users a guarantee which you cannot fulfill. The predictable results are software which doesn’t work as advertised & angry users.
No, malicious or buggy software running on a remote instance absolutely can ignore followers-only and DM restrictions. ActivityPub doesn't offer any guarantees on these fronts. That makes it unsuitable for anything confidential, and it's a good question whether most users realize it.
Then again when infosec and a bunch of other instances accidentally explosed all media in DMs to the world, and when kolektiva accidentaly shared all followers-only and DMs with the FBI, people weren't actually particularly angry about it, so maybe expectations are set correctly,.
-
No, malicious or buggy software running on a remote instance absolutely can ignore followers-only and DM restrictions. ActivityPub doesn't offer any guarantees on these fronts. That makes it unsuitable for anything confidential, and it's a good question whether most users realize it.
Then again when infosec and a bunch of other instances accidentally explosed all media in DMs to the world, and when kolektiva accidentaly shared all followers-only and DMs with the FBI, people weren't actually particularly angry about it, so maybe expectations are set correctly,.
Holy shit I just realized who that account was! They're blocked now.
-
GoToSocial has already implemented this. As I understand it Mastodon the worked with GoToSocial to tweak the protocol-level specification, and the Mastodon implementation can build on mechanisms that were put in place for Quote Boosts. Not sure just where it is on on the Mastodon roadmap though.
-
@informapirata "the inability to reply to a public post actually increases the risk of that post being copied, linked, and screenshotted"
There will never be a perfect solution, it's true. But we can at least put up safeguards and empower people to protect themselves.
The bottom line is, the ability to disable replies is the top-voted issue on Mastodon's repo. Clearly people really want this.
https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20sort%3Areactions-%2B1-desc
thank you for prioritizing this. It's not a total solve (there are no technical solutions to social problems) but it will go a long way toward helping make our communities feel safer and newcomers feel welcome.
and to the Italian instance mod, that's cool you have no problems, tons of others do, and for us this has been an issue we raised repeatedly to apparently deaf ears. I applaud the Mastodon team for applying their care to this issue.
-
Useful info, thanks for checking!
(And, how embarassing that I didn't even do the straightforward checking myself)
-
@kycm_ancy Yeah, I'm not going to lie, seeing how Bluesky seems to have reversed its decline over the past week, the fediverse has a lot of catching up to do.
@stefan I don't think the Fedi is ever going to go mainstream, it's basically the Linux of social media
-
thank you for prioritizing this. It's not a total solve (there are no technical solutions to social problems) but it will go a long way toward helping make our communities feel safer and newcomers feel welcome.
and to the Italian instance mod, that's cool you have no problems, tons of others do, and for us this has been an issue we raised repeatedly to apparently deaf ears. I applaud the Mastodon team for applying their care to this issue.
@cyberlyra I'm sorry, I am not involved with Mastodon's team, or this request. But I do hope that after we speak out enough, this will get the prioritization it deserves, for the sake of fediverse's diversity.
-
@stefan I don't think the Fedi is ever going to go mainstream, it's basically the Linux of social media
@kycm_ancy Perhaps. But I am curious to see what happens when Bluesky's money runs out.
-
@kycm_ancy Perhaps. But I am curious to see what happens when Bluesky's money runs out.
@stefan I can only speculate but they did mention that they are considering ways to get monetized, but the first step will be ads for sure lol
-
@stefan I can only speculate but they did mention that they are considering ways to get monetized, but the first step will be ads for sure lol
@kycm_ancy Yep.
And I don't want to speculate either, but --
-
What I would love to see in addition is an Approve Reply function, to completely eliminate the echo chamber and allow a wider diversity of appropriate replies. Only allowing @-mentions and @-followers severely limits the chance for good, broad conversation.
@uc Hmm, I'm not sure I understand how this would work, mind elaborating?
