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

@evan You asked "should", not "does", so my answer is "only people who follow *both* Alice and Bob", that is, the intersection of both sets of followers. (Your 3rd option, to me, reads like "people who follow *either*", that is, the union.)

Whether Alice-only follower Carol (resp. Bob-only follower Dave) should gain access to Bob's reply by following Bob (resp. Alice) after Bob's reply is unclear to me.

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

#EvanPoll #poll

@evan

Intersection of Alice and Bob's followers.

@bjb so a smaller and smaller audience as the conversation goes on? Eventually too small to keep the conversation up?

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

#EvanPoll #poll

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

#EvanPoll #poll

@pauamma so, the audience for replies gets smaller and smaller as the conversation grows?

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

#EvanPoll #poll

Hey, all. So, I appreciate the responses. I'll break down the options here.

@evan Sure!

Does this wording make sense?

When you post a followers-only post, who do you expect replies from?

My own followers (MOF)
MOF + repliers' followers (RF)
Mutual MOF + RF only
Something else?

(Trying to be concise!)

"Alice's followers" is the way most social networks work with private X, Facebook, Instagram. It lets Alice ask questions or share private info with people she trusts and cares about, and lets them discuss amongst themselves. It is really the best way to use social networks.

"Bob's followers" is the literalist version, with the worst possible dynamics. "You should reply to a followers-only post with a followers-only post" retains the same UI choice while completely changing the audience. Most of the other people who read Alice's post won't see Bob's comments. Bob's followers who don't follow Alice won't understand the context of his post, and won't be able to read Alice's post. It also violates Alice's privacy to share a response to her question with strangers.

"Bob's followers" is the literalist version, with the worst possible dynamics. "You should reply to a followers-only post with a followers-only post" retains the same UI choice while completely changing the audience. Most of the other people who read Alice's post won't see Bob's comments. Bob's followers who don't follow Alice won't understand the context of his post, and won't be able to read Alice's post. It also violates Alice's privacy to share a response to her question with strangers.

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

#EvanPoll #poll

"Both" at least makes the full conversation visible to all A's followers, but it has most of the same problems as sharing with B's followers. It sends them a part of a conversation without context, but also violates A's privacy.

For "Other", a lot of people replied with "the intersection of A's followers and B's followers". This makes replies to replies to replies less and less visible to participants, until practically no one can see what's being said. It's terrible for conversations.