If Alice makes a followers-only post, and Bob replies to it, to whom should Bob's reply be visible?
-
@evan The most common situation where one of my follows makes a follower-only post is where they're asking for advice, help or sympathy for a personal issue. I don't want my own followers to see my reply, as that could expose sensitive details about the issue. But I do want the OP's followers to see it, so that we all know what support we've already offered and can avoid spamming them with unnecessary information.
-
@vanderwal actually, most social networks default to having Bob's reply visible to Alice's followers. That is how followers-only posts work on X, Instagram, and Facebook.
@evan Oh, I know. It makes keeping tabs on people wishing to be quiet or unseen more visible. It really breaks the "for followers only" intent a badly broken promise and rather dishonest at the worst and poorly (or not even) thought through at the lightest.
-
@evan In Friendica we have got the rule that the thread starter decides the audience. Especially when someone posts just to a selected group of people, we put then in
ccand then the reply will go to all actors inccas well.@heluecht it seems like a pretty good rule of thumb.
-
Restricting the audience of a post will slow its distribution but it can in no way be assumed to prevent it.
So I'm going to opt for the two groups of followers, since while Alice might not that intend her message reach others, it inevitably will. Limiting the expansion of the message reach in this way seems to balance Alice's expectations with the need to avoid creating echo chambers.
But Fedi users also need to be informed, constantly, that these are public forums.
@evan Finally, isn't "Bob's followers exclusively" the definition of sub-posting? I might not understand it correctly so please do correct me if not.
On a side note I've been trying to shift towards the word "exclusively" to avoid ambiguity since I learned all too recently that the word "only" is sometimes used for emphasis in Indian English, and since I have not yet mastered that usage.
-
@evan this is a tough one. From a theoretical perspective I'd have gone with "Bob's followers" because each post is a post in its own right and the fact that it happens to have a reply on top shoudn't change that. (Which is also how it works today, right?)
But seeing too many fragmented conversations has made me think that in practical terms it's better to have replies "inherit" viewership from the starting post—i.e. Bob's post is visible to Alice's followers
-
@evan this is a tough one. From a theoretical perspective I'd have gone with "Bob's followers" because each post is a post in its own right and the fact that it happens to have a reply on top shoudn't change that. (Which is also how it works today, right?)
But seeing too many fragmented conversations has made me think that in practical terms it's better to have replies "inherit" viewership from the starting post—i.e. Bob's post is visible to Alice's followers
@evan a related interesting question to think about: if Bob's reply is visible to Alice's followers, and Alice later gets a new follower, should Bob's post automatically visible to that new follower too?
-
@evan I know Alice. Alice is fedi-famous. WTF is Bob?
-
@vanderwal actually, most social networks default to having Bob's reply visible to Alice's followers. That is how followers-only posts work on X, Instagram, and Facebook.
@evan With early Twitter as they were releasing their “private" option this was discussed a lot. At the time keeping servers up was a primary concern. The reply model they have was intended to be fixed, but never was.
-
@evan I think both is a problem because if we keep going, the conversation will be among a very different public each time anyone answers. Same for "Bob's".
I put "something else", but I wish I put "Alice's".
-
@evan Oh, I know. It makes keeping tabs on people wishing to be quiet or unseen more visible. It really breaks the "for followers only" intent a badly broken promise and rather dishonest at the worst and poorly (or not even) thought through at the lightest.
Private posts let you have intimate conversations with people you know. They are a great way that people share personal updates with their family and friends. They enable connection.
I have never, ever, *ever* seen anyone on Instagram complain about their comments on a private photo being visible to other followers.
-
@evan people who follow both Alice and Bob
-
@evan probably. I don’t see that as an intrinsic problem. The constant broadening of the audience is one of the vices of commercial social media. Maybe Bob has 2 options , Alice’s followers or the (smaller) intersection. But he shouldn’t be able to widen it against Alice’s intent.
That's kind of a neat solution.
It's all public in the long run of course, so everybody needs to keep that in mind.
-
@reiver so, like sitting in a room with someone while they talk on the phone, and you only hear their side of the conversation.
-
@evan
It should be visible to the original set as Alice shared the post with her followers, not followers of followers (light blue segment of set diagram). Any of Bob’s followers that also follow Alice will see the post and replies anyway. See comments on set diagram and post about the set theory maths/model - https://mastodon.social/@dahukanna/116030140984675453 -
@evan
It should be visible to the original set as Alice shared the post with her followers, not followers of followers (light blue segment of set diagram). Any of Bob’s followers that also follow Alice will see the post and replies anyway. See comments on set diagram and post about the set theory maths/model - https://mastodon.social/@dahukanna/116030140984675453@dahukanna omg!!
-
Private posts let you have intimate conversations with people you know. They are a great way that people share personal updates with their family and friends. They enable connection.
I have never, ever, *ever* seen anyone on Instagram complain about their comments on a private photo being visible to other followers.
@evan Because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they aren't out their in abundance. Doing simple user research you quickly find this model is really problematic for people thinking they were private, it is an amazing tool for stalkers to take advantage of and oh they do. The stories are abundant and can be brutal.
Following bad practices and putting people at risk isn't great. People are looking for a better social platform that has their wishes upheld, not another that breaks them.
-
@evan Because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they aren't out their in abundance. Doing simple user research you quickly find this model is really problematic for people thinking they were private, it is an amazing tool for stalkers to take advantage of and oh they do. The stories are abundant and can be brutal.
Following bad practices and putting people at risk isn't great. People are looking for a better social platform that has their wishes upheld, not another that breaks them.
@vanderwal show me the data.
-
@evan
It should be visible to the original set as Alice shared the post with her followers, not followers of followers (light blue segment of set diagram). Any of Bob’s followers that also follow Alice will see the post and replies anyway. See comments on set diagram and post about the set theory maths/model - https://mastodon.social/@dahukanna/116030140984675453@dahukanna @evan Yes! This! This has always been the right answer.
The simplicity in this venn diagram is the “yes" is only Alice's followers.
-
That's kind of a neat solution.
It's all public in the long run of course, so everybody needs to keep that in mind.
-
It doesn't seem misleading
Did you try to look at it from end-user's perspective?
I'm writing a reply to someone's followers-only post. The form shows me "Visible for followers only". How isn't it misleading for me?
When I do that as a post from the same form, my followers see that.Why should I expect anything else when writing a reply with such option enabled?
