@scottjenson @evana @mastodonmigration @stefan ...such a change might be unexpected if not communicated appropriately ahead-of-time. in effect, it would collapse the "public"/"followers"/"direct" into just "public"/"not public".

you'd probably also want the filter to be a bit smarter about what counts as "unsolicited", because even public mentions can be "unsolicited".

and of course i'd be remiss to leave out my usual advocacy for allowing people to create explicit contexts which they control!

evana@hachyderm.io scottjenson@social.coop mastodonmigration@mastodon.online stefan@stefanbohacek.online would it help if selecting "followers only" didn't also include any mentioned people who are not followers? so mentions only are only shown the post and notified if you post publicly or if they are already following you.

@stefan @mastodonmigration @scottjenson @mekkaokereke

One option to prevent hidden abusive pile-on in the replies would be to allow only new posts to select a "privacy level". Every single reply in a thread or sub-thread should mandatorily inherit the "privacy level" of the parent post.

I wrote a thread elaborating on this argument.

Feral Thoughts (@feralthoughts@union.place)

🧵arguing that we should do away with “privacy level” options for reply posts (in case of Mastodon and Mastodon-like Fediverse platforms which follow that model), to eliminate the ability of racists to hide their abuse of black users behind “mentioned users only” replies. #Fediverse #Mastodon #PostPrivacy (continues)

The Union Place (union.place)

@ricci @juergen_hubert @ainmosni @IveyJanette

This one is not on the "global south invisibility" problem, but I wrote a short thread suggesting that an option to prevent hidden abusive racist pile-on in the replies would be to allow only new posts to select a "privacy level". Every single reply in a thread or sub-thread should mandatorily inherit the "privacy level" of the parent post.

In case you are interested:

Feral Thoughts (@feralthoughts@union.place)

🧵arguing that we should do away with “privacy level” options for reply posts (in case of Mastodon and Mastodon-like Fediverse platforms which follow that model), to eliminate the ability of racists to hide their abuse of black users behind “mentioned users only” replies. #Fediverse #Mastodon #PostPrivacy (continues)

The Union Place (union.place)

@mayel @evana @scottjenson @mastodonmigration @stefan It would only make it a little more difficult. The 'brigading' is now a two-step process for every participant.

The vector is really the 'followers-only' option. If we want to keep it, no way around sending a mandatory copy to a designated 'brigading moderator'.

@mekkaokereke “I’m unapologetically backing improvements across […] ATProto” “You can just back both teams”

lets be real no you shouldn’t back a corpo project that acts purely to divide people and push a centroid & centralized ecosystem

I know i’m saying this to someone who talks about Mastodon as if it were the entire Fediverse and allegedly works for Google but dude no BS is not our friend here

@zaire

I said what I said.

People like you try to tell everyone that corpo vs open source is the line between good and evil. And you think yourself so clever for pointing out that "Mastodon is not the whole Fediverse."

But there is more CSAM on the Fediverse than on other social media, including BlueSky, and it's not close. There are more nazi instances on the Fediverse than on BlueSky, and it's not close. The Fediverse is less welcoming to Black people than either BlueSky or Twitter, and it's not close.

You prioritize anti-corp as most important, and that's fine for you. I define anti-racism and safety for Black people as mine. When the Fediverse is less dangerous for Black people than all the other social media, I'll encourage more people to come to it. Until that day, I'll work to make that true, and I'll tell people like you to pipe down when they try to pretend that the Fediverse today is some type of utopia, or even morally superior to BlueSky. It's not.

But it could be.

@mekkaokereke

But there is more CSAM on the Fediverse than on other social media, including BlueSky, and it’s not close. There are more nazi instances on the Fediverse than on BlueSky, and it’s not close.

This only means anything if you’re on an unmoderated instance yourself. and even then, I figure it’s because BS has 200 times less instances in general…?

Mind you, I do think myself quite clever, and I do think the Fediverse is morally superior to the fascist-platforming BS, and I have good reasons for it.

The Fediverse is less welcoming to Black people than either BlueSky or Twitter

When you bring up X as more welcoming to any minority and more worth using than fedi I start to have trouble taking you seriously.

@mekkaokereke the very inherent factors that let nazis set up camp on the Fediverse work both ways. good people can hang out here on the fediverse without being interfered with by any state or corporation. and said good people can, and do fediblock the fuck out of the vocal minority of fash. I absolutely do not see how this is in any way worse for Black people than oligarch-controlled centralized spaces that range only from fascist to mediocrily centrist.

@zaire

" I absolutely do not see how this is in any way worse for Black people than oligarch-controlled centralized spaces"

Which is the difference between me and you. Which is the difference between millions of Black people and you.

And you are not owed an explanation. Just go away before I block you.

And no, Black people can't exist here without being bothered unless they're on an unmoderated instance. For example, right now, I, a proud son of Africa, I'm being bothered by some weirdo with Zaire in their handle, that's trying to tell me how moderation works on the Fediverse.