@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.

@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].

@mathias

"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:

5 things white people can do to start making the fediverse less toxic for Black people

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.

@stefan @8124

@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.

Paul Frazee (@pfrazee.com)

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.

@Wraithe

Interesting, thank you!

@dec23k @USelaine

@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)

@stefan @evan

@thenexusofprivacy @evan Ah, yes, this does sound familiar, thank you both for reminding me!

@graue @stefan can’t remember where, but I read recently m they were able to get funding for QT as a new feature, but were not successful requesting funds for reply controls