If Alice makes a followers-only post, and Bob replies to it, to whom should Bob's reply be visible?
-
@ZenHeathen @evan
Bob ethically shouldn't be showing his reply to a limited audience thread to all his followers. He can trivially do it by simply a copy / paste anyway.In the real world in Mastodon all privacy features are flawed. Assume everyone sees everything.
"Private" is misnamed on Mastodon. There are no private or limited messages.
@raymaccarthy I'm sure I've replied to "followers only" things from time to time, *guaranteed* without knowing that they were, because unless I'm digging, and reminded for some reason to do so, I don't even remember where in the interface that I would find that. And I've never posted anything to my followers only.
But if what you describe is how it works, then... No one should ever reply to anything posts "followers only", ever. Because as soon as they do, it moves beyond what the original posted intended. Like, there's no way to even participate in good faith in that conversation, you can't possibly say anything at all. If anything, the setting should be between Normal and Read-Only. @evan
-
@raymaccarthy I'm sure I've replied to "followers only" things from time to time, *guaranteed* without knowing that they were, because unless I'm digging, and reminded for some reason to do so, I don't even remember where in the interface that I would find that. And I've never posted anything to my followers only.
But if what you describe is how it works, then... No one should ever reply to anything posts "followers only", ever. Because as soon as they do, it moves beyond what the original posted intended. Like, there's no way to even participate in good faith in that conversation, you can't possibly say anything at all. If anything, the setting should be between Normal and Read-Only. @evan
@ZenHeathen @evan
I don't know what the "correct" answer should be for here, nor do I quite understand it.
I do know that if either party puts the actual mastodon ID of someone anywhere in the supposed private 1:1 message, that person gets it too. Is that by design or a mistake?
Certainly the actual real Mastodon isn't remotely like using groups on Viber (A Japanese owned app like Skype used to be before MS broke it, except better). Viber is on all platforms as a program or app & is encrypted. -
@ZenHeathen @evan
I don't know what the "correct" answer should be for here, nor do I quite understand it.
I do know that if either party puts the actual mastodon ID of someone anywhere in the supposed private 1:1 message, that person gets it too. Is that by design or a mistake?
Certainly the actual real Mastodon isn't remotely like using groups on Viber (A Japanese owned app like Skype used to be before MS broke it, except better). Viber is on all platforms as a program or app & is encrypted.@raymaccarthy Whoa, "private messages" is a completely different animal, though I agree, they're crap here, and misleadingly named. But I thought we were talking about a regular post, but with the selector moved to "followers only" instead of "public". That's not the same thing. Maybe we should let it lie, before further misunderstandings. @evan
-
@raymaccarthy Whoa, "private messages" is a completely different animal, though I agree, they're crap here, and misleadingly named. But I thought we were talking about a regular post, but with the selector moved to "followers only" instead of "public". That's not the same thing. Maybe we should let it lie, before further misunderstandings. @evan
@ZenHeathen @evan
Yes.
I think what is illustrated is that people might misunderstand what any of the filters do and have different opinions on what they think ought to happen.Still, it's far better than Facebook, X-Twitter, LinkedIn, TikTok or even Bluesky.
If someone wants a private group they should set it up on Viber. "Followers only" here is almost pointless.
-
@evan
Either Alice's only or intersection of Bob and Alice. There's a reason it wasn't visible to all of Bob's at the start so audience shouldn't be enlarged without Alice giving permission. -
The intersection of Alice and Bob's followers.
-
The intersection of Alice and Bob's followers.
@ori so as the conversation continues, fewer and fewer people can see what's being said?
-
@jmcclure you're forgiven!
The poll is not mandatory, so please feel free to spend your one wild and precious life doing something different.
-
@ori so as the conversation continues, fewer and fewer people can see what's being said?
Yes. Either you do that or you ignore someone's privacy settings.
-
Yes. Either you do that or you ignore someone's privacy settings.
@ori *or* you give Bob an option to reply to Alice's followers.
-
@ori *or* you give Bob an option to reply to Alice's followers.
Yes. That's equivalent to Alice setting their post followers only, and Bob setting their post public, but less confusing to the user.
(Edit: realized you hadn't said what Bob's visibility was set to. Anyway: UI quibbles aside, the answer is that you intersect the people who are able to view)
-
Yes. That's equivalent to Alice setting their post followers only, and Bob setting their post public, but less confusing to the user.
(Edit: realized you hadn't said what Bob's visibility was set to. Anyway: UI quibbles aside, the answer is that you intersect the people who are able to view)I don't think it breaks expectations.
It's also the way most social networks work. If the OP posts privately, all the comments and replies to comments are visible to *all* the OP's followers.
This is how Facebook, Instagram, and X all work.
They let you have private conversations with people that matter to you. It's one of the best parts of those platforms.
-
I don't think it breaks expectations.
It's also the way most social networks work. If the OP posts privately, all the comments and replies to comments are visible to *all* the OP's followers.
This is how Facebook, Instagram, and X all work.
They let you have private conversations with people that matter to you. It's one of the best parts of those platforms.
Well, you asked what expectations were, and I told you. They're not what you seem to be proposing. Not sure what else to say.
-
@evan what I'd prefer to make are mutuals-only posts
-
Well, you asked what expectations were, and I told you. They're not what you seem to be proposing. Not sure what else to say.
@ori cool, thanks for your input. I'm not proposing anything, I just think your expectations are really bad for conversations.
-
@evan I voted “Alice’s followers”, but if Bob marks their reply followers-only, it should be only the intersection of Alice and Bob’s followers.
-
@ori cool, thanks for your input. I'm not proposing anything, I just think your expectations are really bad for conversations.
I would be very surprised if I posted a followers -only note that a non-follower could see.
If I posted a globally visible note in response to a followers-only note, and only the people who could see the original note could see my response, it would make sense to me.
-
@evan I voted “Alice’s followers”, but if Bob marks their reply followers-only, it should be only the intersection of Alice and Bob’s followers.
@dougwade so, in a long conversation, the set of people who can read it gets smaller and smaller?
-
@dougwade so, in a long conversation, the set of people who can read it gets smaller and smaller?
@evan I think so. I think in an ideal world, I would prefer an audience that expands, but in the real world where people use followers-only to feel safe online, it is important that only followers appear downstream of a followers-only post. At least, that’s what I would expect absent some other cue.
-
I would be very surprised if I posted a followers -only note that a non-follower could see.
If I posted a globally visible note in response to a followers-only note, and only the people who could see the original note could see my response, it would make sense to me.@ori I think this is where I got on the merry-go-round.
