@8124 Well the problem here is unwanted @ mentions. Again, I am not typically a target of harassment, so I don't want to speak for those affected by this, but I'd imagine unwanted @ mentions are a much bigger problem than strangers linking to your posts without tagging you.

Which, I suppose, based on the nature of such posts, could be a whole another problem, and much like people sharing screenshots of your posts, a lot harder to address.

@stefan I've mentioned wanting this a couple of times and always it draws stiff criticism of the "you're doing it wrong" kind. But I should be able to preemptively shut up jerks when I know they're going to dogpile, or sometimes I want to post something personal like a remembrance of someone I've lost, without replies. Or sometimes I want to pin a post without it getting replies. I should have all that control to prevent randos from jumping in where they're not wanted.

@Nonya_Bidniss Yeah, it's the type of people that are the reason we need tools like this being the loudest opponents, go figure.

@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.

True, but https://pdsls.dev/ is a useful hack.

@dec23k @stefan @USelaine

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 @lobingera

@8124

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.

@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.

Bluesky User Growth and Active Users

See how activity and usage of Bluesky has been growing over time. How many users are currently active? How many posts are posted daily on Bluesky?

(bluefacts.app)

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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...

@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?

@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.

@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.