@scottjenson @stefan

This was in another thread discussing the issue. Not sure if what it reports is accurate vis a vis moderator limitations. Could it be a GDPR issue?

"This technique is insidious in another way too. As a moderator, you can't look at non-public posts unless someone specifically reports them, so your ability to understand the context is severely limited. Sometimes you literally can't see the harassment even when you go looking for it."

https://sfba.social/@EverydayMoggie/115330983420918538

@scottjenson Not sure if I understand the question myself. Do you mean whether someone posting a followers-only + 1 post would automatically flag that post for moderation?

That's a tricky one. Now that I think about it, I might've actually received replies to my posts that were followers-only+1 (me). No abuse, just regular replies, I suppose the person wanted a bit more privacy?

@evana @mastodonmigration

@mastodonmigration @stefan The "math" checks out. I don't deny this is happening. At the same time, none of us in this thread says we've ever experienced it. We can't fight a problem we don't properly understand.

What would help is talking to people/moderators that have had to deal with this. I have to assume this is a fairly common problem so finding people to talk to should be fairly easy I would hope.

@stefan @evana @mastodonmigration Exactly, that's why I asked the second question: make it a simple one-click for the target to report it.

The filter (if it defaults to off) isn't good enough. Most people just won't know how to turn it on.

@scottjenson @mastodonmigration @stefan I don't have good ideas yet, but a couple probably-obvious observations:

* New and less-technical users are probably more likely to completely exit the platform due to harassment
* Experienced and technical users will probably have connections and better ability to bring tools into play
* Followers-only specifically separates the participants from any other network than the original poster. This probably needs to be communicated _really clearly_
* I can see followers-only as a good solution for sensitive discussions, but you want the recipients to understand that the information is sensitive so they don't allude to it/repost it without that privacy
* There's a tension between privacy defaults and broadening the web of social connection and discovery. The most private default would remove a lot of the social network value, so you'll rarely get a clear "win" without at least some damage to other cases

@evana @mastodonmigration @stefan Agree with your points but we're still circling around the issue of how likely this happens (and how)

I DONT want to imply I don't believe people that say it happens, I'm just trying to understand the broader flow, i.e. how can a Brigade operate in secrecy? It just seems very fragile as they likely do other things that get them banned. Have we seen a large scale brigade that worked this way for a while? What causes them to trip up? Let's focus on that.

@scottjenson

I know we're very early into the conversation, and I'm sure more ideas will come up, but so far everything is just telling me that followers-only+1 posts should not be possible and rejected as "+1 is not a follower".

The workarounds are getting confusing.

@evana @mastodonmigration

@stefan @evana @mastodonmigration I agree! But you're pointing out to one of the pros/cons of the fediverse. Restricting followers-only to not have a +1 is a client limitation, something that could be avoided with a custom client.

Repeat after me: "Federation makes everything harder"

@scottjenson Right, but could the message get rejected by the server when it sees a "followers only" visibility, and the recipient is not a follower?

Almost like a quick, temporary auto-block of that person.

@evana @mastodonmigration

@stefan @evana @mastodonmigration yes, if this is a server feature and not a client one, then my concern goes away.

But I can 100% guarantee you that there is a small group of people that do this for very positive and supportive reasons that will be quite miffed if we do this (which just might be necessary!)

This is why I'm trying to find other ways of looking at this problem. I want to solve it! Just trying to find the right lever.

@scottjenson It just sounds like we might need to turn the conversation around and instead of asking how to mitigate this feature's potential for abuse, a better question might be, why is this useful?

If to limit a posts visibility, maybe using "quiet public" is a better option?

@evana @mastodonmigration

@scottjenson

Just trying to imagine this playing out IRL. Someone pulls me to the side to talk to me, surrounds me with their buddies. Now, they might all be very nice people. But this situation just sounds inherently threatening.

@evana @mastodonmigration

@stefan @evana @mastodonmigration These are indeed the harder questions to ask! I'm glad you're asking them

@scottjenson

So the needs or desires of that small group of people who's getting miffed has higher priority than people receiving harm and threats?

@stefan @evana @mastodonmigration

@tomjennings @stefan @evana @mastodonmigration

Of course not. I'm just saying I open source software has these arguments all the time and we need to be respectful of others

@tomjennings @scottjenson @stefan @evana

Tom, don't think that was what Scott was saying. This is a brainstorming session. As such, all aspects of the matter are being put on the table. The first step is to identify the problem in all it's complexities. It's a long way from making any kind of priority calls or implementation decisions. Feel like it is important to assume everyone has good intentions to constructively address the issue at this point.

@scottjenson @evana @mastodonmigration @stefan

> they likely do other things that get them banned

not necessarily? think of a messaging app that supports group messages. you create a group chat with your buddies and one other person. the person being added can:

- not accept the invite
- remove themselves from the group
- block people in the group
- report messages in the group

in the last scenario, mods do not have full context. the user has to attach any relevant context.

@scottjenson @evana @mastodonmigration @stefan but because there is a private aspect, you would be free to act differently than you would otherwise act in public, and your only avenue for consequences would be *if* the added person reports y'all.

so the gap here is that people aren't being made aware that they can/should report such harassment. i don't think doing away with private posts solves anything.

one thing that could be done is to filter followers-only like mentioned-only, but...

@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!

@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)