If Alice makes a followers-only post, and Bob replies to it, to whom should Bob's reply be visible?
-
@evan Hm. I chose "other" but now I think what I meant to select was
"both Alice's and Bob's followers"@flowerpot what would Bob's reply look like to his followers?
-
@evan It isn't intended as condescension. The common saying of "you can't know until you know" applies. Until you run across what you can unsee or unthink it isn't a possibility.
The Kathy Sierra debacle that was the final push that got Twitter to have their private accounts in the manner the put in place (as a stop gap) was a brutal wake-up call for many. The frailty of that system also was problematic and those, like Kathy, ended up leaving in the tens of thousands.
if Bob replies to a post by Alice, they are implicitly relinquishing their communication style, in that context, to the communication style of Alice
if they don't want to to do that, they should not reply to Alice
Bob should not be able to hijack Alice's post with their communication style
it is indeed about respect
but you aren't following what is the most respectful thing here
it is disrespectful to Alice that Bob's communication style can hijack Alice's post
-
@evan
I’m surprised at the results here. To me it seems like a cut-and-dry consent issue: Alice has indicated in the original post that she only consents to communicating with people who follow her on that post. By making Bob’s replies visible to Bob’s followers (or anyone else) you’re exposing Alice to accounts she did explicitly did not consent to communicating with. 🤨 -
if Bob replies to a post by Alice, they are implictily relinquishing their communication style to the style of Alice, because it is Alice's top level post. Alice "owns" the conversation as top level poster
Bob must consider the implications of that before replying
that solves the problem
the structure of a conversation is beholden to the imperatives of the starter of that conversation. it should not be hijacked
your other concerns are valid
but are overruled in this context
-
@evan I think so. The wishes of any of the participants to keep the message to followers only is not respected if both presence of the conversation and parts of it are visible to followers' followers.
Alice started the thread, so in this context, we respect her communication style choices for that post and everything that follows underneath it
if Bob can come in and hijack the conversation with their communication style, this is disrespectful to Alice
in the context of a thread Alice started, we respect Alice's communication style, and no one else's
this is the most responsible approach
-
@evan To Alice's followers by default. But possible to restrict to the intersection with Bob's followers if Bob wishes.
-
@maj Dawn's and my answer would be all of Alice's followers. I don't like the intersection answer, because it gets smaller and smaller over time. I think Alice's intent is to have her friends and family have a conversation, like it works on Instagram and Facebook.
@evan @maj that's my answer too, i.e. "Alice's friends", since that's Alice's original intent, a conversation among her friends.
There are advantages to having Bob's reply go to only Alice first, who then fans it out to her followers. For example, it allows full reply controls. It also allows semi-anonymous replies, where Alice can see that Bob sent it but no one else can. This is useful when Bob doesn't want to reveal himself (his profile etc.) to all friends of friends, and it still protects against abuse because Alice still knows it's Bob.
The main disadvantage of routing all replies through Alice's device first is that Alice has to be online for the conversation to continue as it happens. However, Alice could have a trusted (!) server handle the fanning out instead, assuming she doesn't need to manually approve replies.
My social media app FriendSafe routes all replies through the OP (Alice) first. It allows those semi-anonymous replies but doesn't have reply controls now (but it could).
-
@evan The answer is go back to LiveJournal and Alice gets to decide. If her post is fully public, anyone can comment on it. If it's private and Bob is in a group of people she shared it with, only Bob and the people in that group can see the post and comment. Now if Bob wants to make a copy of her post and share it privately this his group of friends, that's his business but then he's probably not a very good friend.
-
if i go into your house, i respect the pile of shoes at the front door, and take off my own
the idea there is someone who doesn't understand this obvious thing: i am a guest in *your* thread, is not anyone else's problem
so, yes: some things are obvious
i won't trudge into your house with my dirty shoes. if someone else does, that's something obvious they don't understand they should understand
they can be delicately reprimanded. and they learn. end of problem
-
@ZenHeathen @evan
Yes it should. It's Alice's conversation. Only Alice's followers if she marked it thusExcept Mastodon will show it to anyone mentioned by bob. Which is broken. Even if it was private to Alice and Bob.
@raymaccarthy Alice shouldn't get to choose the privacy of Bob's words. As I said, Bob's followers shouldn't be able to scroll up to see Alice's words, but there's no reason that Alice should be able to ensure that Bob's followers can't see Bob's words. They're not her words, it's not her choice, just as Bob shouldn't get to choose who gets to see Alice's words. @evan
-
@evan EXACTLY what I imagined.
So, the answer would be visible to the intersect between them.
Of course, how that scales as *those* people reply... there lies the rub. -
@flippac it's not how most other social networks work. If Alice posted a private photo on Instagram, and Bob commented, Alice's other followers could see Bob's comment, but Bob's followers could not.
@evan to put this another way: we either have a notion of somebody's "space" as opposed to just their account, or we don't - and currently we don't just as xitter doesn't
if we don't have "space" to post to, what I'm suggesting is the most privacy-preserving option
i'd be entirely cool with adding a notion of spaces and everybody having one of their own by default ("communities" being another example that's not always owned by exactly one account), except if we've got that far i want the option of "exactly these people" filters too
-
My vote was based on current implementation and explanation of same to users.
However, if we ask "ought" rather than "should" (principle rather than expectation), then reply visibility would be contingent on the propinquity of followers to both Alice and Bob, which is to say, not all of either interlocutor's followers would see the post, but rather visibility would be a function of relationship weights with each follower across both participants in the exchange.
-
@evan It should obviously be visible to Eve.
-
@evan It is Alice's post and conversation. If Bob wants other people to know what was said, he's able to do his own post to his followers.
I don't even like the idea of 'followers only' posts. Use email or direct messages if it's that 'special'. -
@mhoye so, as the conversation goes on, the audience gets smaller and smaller?
-
@raymaccarthy Alice shouldn't get to choose the privacy of Bob's words. As I said, Bob's followers shouldn't be able to scroll up to see Alice's words, but there's no reason that Alice should be able to ensure that Bob's followers can't see Bob's words. They're not her words, it's not her choice, just as Bob shouldn't get to choose who gets to see Alice's words. @evan
@ZenHeathen @evan
She should if she started a non-universal conversation.Bob can post his replay also to his followers, but that is certainly not cricket.
-
@jmcclure yes, of course it should be defined by Bob's settings.
But what settings should be available to him? And what should be the default? Most of all, what should he choose?
-
@maj Dawn's and my answer would be all of Alice's followers. I don't like the intersection answer, because it gets smaller and smaller over time. I think Alice's intent is to have her friends and family have a conversation, like it works on Instagram and Facebook.
-
@ZenHeathen @evan
She should if she started a non-universal conversation.Bob can post his replay also to his followers, but that is certainly not cricket.
@raymaccarthy It's a microblogging platform, not a blog, and not a forum where one can make a post and control who can post under it. Alice can control her post and who sees it, and can control for herself who's posts she sees, but she should not have any control over what anyone else's posts. You cannot convince me on this point. Alice controls Alice's posts, Bob controls Bob's posts, Alice must not be allowed to control Bob's posts and Bob must not be allowed to control Alice's posts. Period. @evan
