@evan @stefan @elena “It can't prevent replies, of course”

This is literally my only point, so I’m glad we can agree on it.

@evan @stefan @elena Yeah, true enough, but then you are no longer talking about “reply controls” in the same sense which others are using the term when asking for this feature.

When they find out that replies are not controlled (after installing your software from a landing page emblazoned with “now supports reply controls”) they will get mad at you.

@evan @stefan “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.”

You’re not listening to the users, who prefer the ability to block replies altogether rather than to simply ignore them as you propose here.

For example, elsewhere in this thread @elena writes “Thing is, as a woman on the internet, I prefer to see what people are saying to me... so I can block accounts or entire servers if needed.”

@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.

@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 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 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.

@stefan On a decentralized network, replies are just links to your post. They are hosted externally by the server hosting the account publishing the reply.

It’s not that this isn’t being implemented. It’s that there are *no technical means in software* to prevent someone else’s computer server from hosting a URL pointing to your public post (which is because it is their computer and not yours).

The endless requests for this inherently impossible feature are just old Twitter habits dying hard.