I know this is already on Mastodon team's radar, but I do want to stress how important this feature is.
-
@lobingera From what I understand, goToSocial has been working on this, with the Mastodon team waiting for them to publish a formal proposal so that this feature can be more widely adopted by other fediverse platforms.
It looks like that hasn't happened yet, probably because the feature is still being actively developed, based on what I see here: https://docs.gotosocial.org/en/latest/federation/interaction_policy/
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.
-
@stefan Replies to posts are implemented as links under-the-hood, though. Really, think about it, is there any other way it could work?
Our posts are hosted on different servers. They have to link to each other in a hidden metadata field, because otherwise how could threads be rendered? Each post would be standalone.
That is why reply controls are inherently impossible under a decentralized approach. There is no way to enforce that everyone runs the same software and configuration.
Going back to this again:
"no technical means in software to prevent someone else’s computer server from hosting a URL pointing to your public post"
Right, anyone can publish a link to my post, but then, based on the reply settings, my server can reject those and not show them under my posts, and I won't get @ mentioned?
Seems like that should solve the problem for people who are now leaving for platforms that provide tools like this, in some cases even back to X/Twitter.
-
@stefan Bluesky genuinely sucks but there's literally nothing better at the moment. Most Twitter refugees flocked there because they're not interested in decentralized social media.
-
@stefan Bluesky genuinely sucks but there's literally nothing better at the moment. Most Twitter refugees flocked there because they're not interested in decentralized social media.
@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.
-
Going back to this again:
"no technical means in software to prevent someone else’s computer server from hosting a URL pointing to your public post"
Right, anyone can publish a link to my post, but then, based on the reply settings, my server can reject those and not show them under my posts, and I won't get @ mentioned?
Seems like that should solve the problem for people who are now leaving for platforms that provide tools like this, in some cases even back to X/Twitter.
@stefan That is exactly right.
It is 100% possible to block users from your own server/software. Accounts being limited or suspended is the “good enough” solution for moderators and server operators.
It is also possible to exercise control over who can reply via post visibility settings.
The only impossibility (for decentralized) is: the ability to make a publicly available post while also preventing replies to it (because all that’s needed to reply is to link, which you already granted).
-
@stefan That is exactly right.
It is 100% possible to block users from your own server/software. Accounts being limited or suspended is the “good enough” solution for moderators and server operators.
It is also possible to exercise control over who can reply via post visibility settings.
The only impossibility (for decentralized) is: the ability to make a publicly available post while also preventing replies to it (because all that’s needed to reply is to link, which you already granted).
@stefan Like, I think your feature makes sense and would be useful. But the complaint you will get is that you only prevented the reply feom being shown on your server, which is not good enough for those requesting this feature.
-
@stefan Like, I think your feature makes sense and would be useful. But the complaint you will get is that you only prevented the reply feom being shown on your server, which is not good enough for those requesting this feature.
@8124 Yeah, I don't want to speak for people who need these tools and features the most, but I think I'd be pretty happy with the replies not showing under my posts and not being notified. These harassers mostly just want people's attention, and if they're ignored, they'll get bored and move on, I'd think.
-
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@stefanbohacek.online Just thinking out loud here without overly much afterthought and still stuffed on xmas/holiday food but: wouldn't it be more in the spirit of things in the Fediverse to be able to control who can READ your posts? I'm talking about plonking your followers in to groups (of your liking..."friends", "roleplayers", "metalheads", "idiots" etc). Much like Google+ did and also to a degree what Facebook does (or allows you to do...I don't think many people are aware of it) and, by all means, Friendica does. Then you can select who you post what to.
But if there was kind of granular control over who could read your posts, it would also be assumed everyone who can read it can reply to it.
Absolutely not easier to do, I'd say about as impossible to do even, but if we're dreaming...but it would be more fair and it would, IMHO, make sense.
If we only control who can reply to otherwise public posts we could end up getting people broadcasting (as opposed to discussing), no?
As I say, I haven't formulated this in a while in my head even as I've kept out of Fediverse/ActivityPub functionality discussions these last few years, but it kind of make more sense in my head.
Anyways, just a thought as I did a drive-by reading of that github pitch. -
@stefan@stefanbohacek.online Just thinking out loud here without overly much afterthought and still stuffed on xmas/holiday food but: wouldn't it be more in the spirit of things in the Fediverse to be able to control who can READ your posts? I'm talking about plonking your followers in to groups (of your liking..."friends", "roleplayers", "metalheads", "idiots" etc). Much like Google+ did and also to a degree what Facebook does (or allows you to do...I don't think many people are aware of it) and, by all means, Friendica does. Then you can select who you post what to.
But if there was kind of granular control over who could read your posts, it would also be assumed everyone who can read it can reply to it.
Absolutely not easier to do, I'd say about as impossible to do even, but if we're dreaming...but it would be more fair and it would, IMHO, make sense.
If we only control who can reply to otherwise public posts we could end up getting people broadcasting (as opposed to discussing), no?
As I say, I haven't formulated this in a while in my head even as I've kept out of Fediverse/ActivityPub functionality discussions these last few years, but it kind of make more sense in my head.
Anyways, just a thought as I did a drive-by reading of that github pitch.@mathias I love Google+'s concept of Circles and definitely hope we'll see that implemented in the fediverse!
Here's what I said, though, about having to choose between wider audience and safety: https://stefanbohacek.online/@stefan/115840476056722953
RE: "If we only control who can reply to otherwise public posts we could end up getting people broadcasting (as opposed to discussing), no?"
You can always ignore people who use social media this way, or report them if they're spreading misinformation.
I don't have comments enabled on my blog. I don't owe anyone an audience, and I don't want to do comment moderation for free.
-
@graue I've seen it come up in a few conversations, but it seems like things are a bit stuck waiting for goToSocial to write an FEP, from what I can tell?
@stefan The Mastodon team has far more resources than GTS (which is still in beta), and a greater deployed base by several orders of magnitude, so while it's nice that they want to do it in a compatible way with GTS' implementation, it seems weird that they'd let that indefinitely block them...
-
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@stefanbohacek.online this seems to steer completely in the opposite direction of W3C recommendations like Webmentions, where replies and reactions are basically HTTP POSTs on a Webmention URL that can be made by anyone on the Internet (not even necessarily on Mastodon).
-
@stefan@stefanbohacek.online this seems to steer completely in the opposite direction of W3C recommendations like Webmentions, where replies and reactions are basically HTTP POSTs on a Webmention URL that can be made by anyone on the Internet (not even necessarily on Mastodon).
@fabio Right, anyone can write a reply or send a reaction, but surely I am not obligated to display them on my own blog, should I ever decide to enable webmentions?
-
@mathias I love Google+'s concept of Circles and definitely hope we'll see that implemented in the fediverse!
Here's what I said, though, about having to choose between wider audience and safety: https://stefanbohacek.online/@stefan/115840476056722953
RE: "If we only control who can reply to otherwise public posts we could end up getting people broadcasting (as opposed to discussing), no?"
You can always ignore people who use social media this way, or report them if they're spreading misinformation.
I don't have comments enabled on my blog. I don't owe anyone an audience, and I don't want to do comment moderation for free.
@stefan@stefanbohacek.online
I hear you. But still, you are kind of enforcing the point I'm trying to make (but which I have yet to formulate in an elegant/clear way).
I think, for me, "social media" is more than just "media", which I would consider a blog, or even a news web site, to be. Like you I don't have comments enabled on any of my (too many) sites, where I can broadcast to my hearts content.
On Social Media though I think we are losing the "social" part if we normalize broadcasting but do not allow comments. Actually I think it is worse, and this is an area where Fediverse (which I love for the most part) too often try to instill the feeling of safety, but without actually being, or creating, any more actual safety (i.e. "blocking" mostly is "move out of sight, for me").
Anyways, interesting topics, and I would say we (in the Fediverse) has lots of areas for improvement challenges. -
@stefan@stefanbohacek.online
I hear you. But still, you are kind of enforcing the point I'm trying to make (but which I have yet to formulate in an elegant/clear way).
I think, for me, "social media" is more than just "media", which I would consider a blog, or even a news web site, to be. Like you I don't have comments enabled on any of my (too many) sites, where I can broadcast to my hearts content.
On Social Media though I think we are losing the "social" part if we normalize broadcasting but do not allow comments. Actually I think it is worse, and this is an area where Fediverse (which I love for the most part) too often try to instill the feeling of safety, but without actually being, or creating, any more actual safety (i.e. "blocking" mostly is "move out of sight, for me").
Anyways, interesting topics, and I would say we (in the Fediverse) has lots of areas for improvement challenges.@mathias I think the lines between social media, websites, blogs, etc, can get pretty blurry. What if you don't have comments enabled on your blog, but then you add the ActivityPub plugin? Shouldn't replies be then disabled as well?
If you don't like seeing accounts that only broadcast, or broadcast to a specific audience that you are not part of, you can ignore them.
If they spread misinformation, you can report them and block them.
Really don't see much of an issue to let people enjoy the (social) web the way they want.
-
@stefan The Mastodon team has far more resources than GTS (which is still in beta), and a greater deployed base by several orders of magnitude, so while it's nice that they want to do it in a compatible way with GTS' implementation, it seems weird that they'd let that indefinitely block them...
@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.
-
@mathias I think the lines between social media, websites, blogs, etc, can get pretty blurry. What if you don't have comments enabled on your blog, but then you add the ActivityPub plugin? Shouldn't replies be then disabled as well?
If you don't like seeing accounts that only broadcast, or broadcast to a specific audience that you are not part of, you can ignore them.
If they spread misinformation, you can report them and block them.
Really don't see much of an issue to let people enjoy the (social) web the way they want.
@mathias I guess the bottom line, for me is:
1. Limiting replies is the most thumbs-upped issue on Mastodon's GitHub: https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20sort%3Areactions-%2B1-desc
2. If the fediverse won't add tools that will empower people to feel safe here, the will continue to leave.
-
@mathias I think the lines between social media, websites, blogs, etc, can get pretty blurry. What if you don't have comments enabled on your blog, but then you add the ActivityPub plugin? Shouldn't replies be then disabled as well?
If you don't like seeing accounts that only broadcast, or broadcast to a specific audience that you are not part of, you can ignore them.
If they spread misinformation, you can report them and block them.
Really don't see much of an issue to let people enjoy the (social) web the way they want.
@stefan@stefanbohacek.online
Ah. And here-in lies the fundamental difference for me compared to what feels like most of the Fediverse:
I do not wish to (have to) "block things I don't like". Too many things in the Fediverse security discussions seem to be about limiting others, but never oneself.
For me this is about fostering, and creating, an environment that invites discussions between interested and/or like-minded, and how to enable that. For me this is isn't about blocking, reporting or otherwise hinder anyone else.
I say that with the full understanding that I will not, and can not, reach "everyone" and force what I have to say (which isn't that much these days) to their ears, without letting them reply or give their view/opinion about it.
My freedom will then be to publish to "everyone" (and risk that "anyone" or even "everyone" replies) OR to publish to those I think are interested, or at least don't dislike my posts (then they can unfollow me).
But knowing that if I post something to a select group of my followers in my book means I can feel confident in expressing myself without rubbing (too) many the wrong way. I see that as safety, which then makes me the odd-one-out here I guess.
So my fundamental difference is I wish to enable things, where most other wish to disable others options. Different routes to the same goal perhaps. I know that as it makes sense to me it is pretty certain to never happen because...[gestures vaguely towards the current state of the world in general].
-
@stefan@stefanbohacek.online
Ah. And here-in lies the fundamental difference for me compared to what feels like most of the Fediverse:
I do not wish to (have to) "block things I don't like". Too many things in the Fediverse security discussions seem to be about limiting others, but never oneself.
For me this is about fostering, and creating, an environment that invites discussions between interested and/or like-minded, and how to enable that. For me this is isn't about blocking, reporting or otherwise hinder anyone else.
I say that with the full understanding that I will not, and can not, reach "everyone" and force what I have to say (which isn't that much these days) to their ears, without letting them reply or give their view/opinion about it.
My freedom will then be to publish to "everyone" (and risk that "anyone" or even "everyone" replies) OR to publish to those I think are interested, or at least don't dislike my posts (then they can unfollow me).
But knowing that if I post something to a select group of my followers in my book means I can feel confident in expressing myself without rubbing (too) many the wrong way. I see that as safety, which then makes me the odd-one-out here I guess.
So my fundamental difference is I wish to enable things, where most other wish to disable others options. Different routes to the same goal perhaps. I know that as it makes sense to me it is pretty certain to never happen because...[gestures vaguely towards the current state of the world in general]."I do not wish to (have to) "block things I don't like"."
Yes, because we're two white dudes, nobody's going to harass us off this platform.
Highly recommend reading this:
https://privacy.thenexus.today/start-making-the-fediverse-less-toxic/
-
"I do not wish to (have to) "block things I don't like"."
Yes, because we're two white dudes, nobody's going to harass us off this platform.
Highly recommend reading this:
https://privacy.thenexus.today/start-making-the-fediverse-less-toxic/
@stefan@stefanbohacek.online
I read it when it was published, but I did re-read it again now just to see what point I was missing. I can't find it.
Just to be crystal clear: I do not mind people being able to limit comments on their posts. I just don't see it as the best way towards "social" OR (actual) security.
When I am suggesting being able to limit, or direct, who you post to, with pretty granular group control, on a post-by-post basis, that isn't said as a "so don't put in moderation tools or other functionality".
After that I have been having a philosophical discussion on if "stopping everyone else" or "enabling me and also everyone else more control" is the best/kindest route forward, and which would be the best mind-set for building a friendly social media community. -
Going back to this again:
"no technical means in software to prevent someone else’s computer server from hosting a URL pointing to your public post"
Right, anyone can publish a link to my post, but then, based on the reply settings, my server can reject those and not show them under my posts, and I won't get @ mentioned?
Seems like that should solve the problem for people who are now leaving for platforms that provide tools like this, in some cases even back to X/Twitter.
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.
