@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.
@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:
Anti-Blackness is a long-term problem in the fediverse. Now's a good time to start changing that.
The Nexus Of Privacy (privacy.thenexus.today)
@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.
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.
@mathias Well, I appreciate you taking the time to re-read the article, and I don't think I will push more on this, as we can't seem to agree.
To me, reply controls make sense. It is a feature that is widely requested. I guess we'll have to see which direction the fediverse will take.
@stefan @dec23k @USelaine It looks like it’s definitely still on their (the Bluesky team) radar. Here’s a post from Paul. Frazee talking about it (barely) less than a year ago.
On the other hand, that was a year ago.
Show edit history is important IMO for transparency For the likes & etc, the answer may be "just leave it," but the risk is the puppy problem as dholms calls it: somebody posts "I love puppies," you like & repost, then they edit it to "I hate puppies"
Bluesky Social (bsky.app)
@stefan we already have reply controls. Every object has a `replies` collection that is managed by the author's server. 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.
@evan Sorry, not sure I'm following. Are you saying AP already supports this, but fediverse platforms (other than maybe goToSocial) haven't implemented it?
Yes, AP has the mechanisms to support it, and I think the specific vocabulary is largely agreed on (there's a FEP, not sure where it is in the process).
It's frustrating that the perception of AP, and current reality of most AP-based software, is so shaped by Mastodon's specific implementation. On the one hand Mastodon's adoption was key to the success of AP, but on the other hand Mastodon's specific choices (also including not adopting C2S) have been less than helpful. Oh well, it is what it is, and hopefully thanks are changing (both with Mastodon and with the broader fediverse)
@thenexusofprivacy @evan Ah, yes, this does sound familiar, thank you both for reminding me!
@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.
What I would love to see in addition is an Approve Reply function, to completely eliminate the echo chamber and allow a wider diversity of appropriate replies. Only allowing @-mentions and @-followers severely limits the chance for good, broad conversation.
No, malicious or buggy software running on a remote instance absolutely can ignore followers-only and DM restrictions. ActivityPub doesn't offer any guarantees on these fronts. That makes it unsuitable for anything confidential, and it's a good question whether most users realize it.
Then again when infosec and a bunch of other instances accidentally explosed all media in DMs to the world, and when kolektiva accidentaly shared all followers-only and DMs with the FBI, people weren't actually particularly angry about it, so maybe expectations are set correctly,.
Holy shit I just realized who that account was! They're blocked now.
atm not on this page
thank you for prioritizing this. It's not a total solve (there are no technical solutions to social problems) but it will go a long way toward helping make our communities feel safer and newcomers feel welcome.
and to the Italian instance mod, that's cool you have no problems, tons of others do, and for us this has been an issue we raised repeatedly to apparently deaf ears. I applaud the Mastodon team for applying their care to this issue.
Useful info, thanks for checking!
(And, how embarassing that I didn't even do the straightforward checking myself)
Citiverse è un progetto che si basa su NodeBB ed è federato! | Categorie federate | Chat | 📱 Installa web app o APK | 🧡 Donazioni | Privacy Policy
