If Alice makes a followers-only post, and Bob replies to it, to whom should Bob's reply be visible?
-
Intersection of Alice and Bob's followers.
@bjb so a smaller and smaller audience as the conversation goes on? Eventually too small to keep the conversation up?
-
@bjb so a smaller and smaller audience as the conversation goes on? Eventually too small to keep the conversation up?
Yep. If there are people that Bob's not interested in, Bob should not have to deal with them.
-
@evan What about Ted and Carol's followers?
-
@pauamma so, the audience for replies gets smaller and smaller as the conversation grows?
@evan Good question. I'd have to think about it more, but my hot take is "it depends a lot on context". (Consider for instance that Bob may be Alice's stalkery ex.)
-
Hey, all. So, I appreciate the responses. I'll break down the options here.
-
Hey, all. So, I appreciate the responses. I'll break down the options here.
"Alice's followers" is the way most social networks work with private X, Facebook, Instagram. It lets Alice ask questions or share private info with people she trusts and cares about, and lets them discuss amongst themselves. It is really the best way to use social networks.
-
@evan Sure!
Does this wording make sense?
When you post a followers-only post, who do you expect replies from?
My own followers (MOF)
MOF + repliers' followers (RF)
Mutual MOF + RF only
Something else?(Trying to be concise!)
@evan Well I went ahead, if you're interested:
-
"Alice's followers" is the way most social networks work with private X, Facebook, Instagram. It lets Alice ask questions or share private info with people she trusts and cares about, and lets them discuss amongst themselves. It is really the best way to use social networks.
"Bob's followers" is the literalist version, with the worst possible dynamics. "You should reply to a followers-only post with a followers-only post" retains the same UI choice while completely changing the audience. Most of the other people who read Alice's post won't see Bob's comments. Bob's followers who don't follow Alice won't understand the context of his post, and won't be able to read Alice's post. It also violates Alice's privacy to share a response to her question with strangers.
-
"Bob's followers" is the literalist version, with the worst possible dynamics. "You should reply to a followers-only post with a followers-only post" retains the same UI choice while completely changing the audience. Most of the other people who read Alice's post won't see Bob's comments. Bob's followers who don't follow Alice won't understand the context of his post, and won't be able to read Alice's post. It also violates Alice's privacy to share a response to her question with strangers.
-
"Bob's followers" is the literalist version, with the worst possible dynamics. "You should reply to a followers-only post with a followers-only post" retains the same UI choice while completely changing the audience. Most of the other people who read Alice's post won't see Bob's comments. Bob's followers who don't follow Alice won't understand the context of his post, and won't be able to read Alice's post. It also violates Alice's privacy to share a response to her question with strangers.
"Both" at least makes the full conversation visible to all A's followers, but it has most of the same problems as sharing with B's followers. It sends them a part of a conversation without context, but also violates A's privacy.
-
-
"Both" at least makes the full conversation visible to all A's followers, but it has most of the same problems as sharing with B's followers. It sends them a part of a conversation without context, but also violates A's privacy.
For "Other", a lot of people replied with "the intersection of A's followers and B's followers". This makes replies to replies to replies less and less visible to participants, until practically no one can see what's being said. It's terrible for conversations.
-
For "Other", a lot of people replied with "the intersection of A's followers and B's followers". This makes replies to replies to replies less and less visible to participants, until practically no one can see what's being said. It's terrible for conversations.
Some repliers insisted that it should be whatever Bob wants, which is trivial. It sidesteps the issue and doesn't address the question at its own level.
I asked, what should be the outcome? Not, who should decide?
What options should Bob have to choose from? What should be the default? What should he choose?
-
Some repliers insisted that it should be whatever Bob wants, which is trivial. It sidesteps the issue and doesn't address the question at its own level.
I asked, what should be the outcome? Not, who should decide?
What options should Bob have to choose from? What should be the default? What should he choose?
Anyway, I agree with the vast majority that the reply should be to Alice's followers. I think the rule of thumb for replies is that they should address about the same audience as the original post, or optionally a subset of that audience. Expanding the audience confuses readers and violates privacy expectations.
-
Anyway, I agree with the vast majority that the reply should be to Alice's followers. I think the rule of thumb for replies is that they should address about the same audience as the original post, or optionally a subset of that audience. Expanding the audience confuses readers and violates privacy expectations.
Thanks to everyone who responded or replied, even if I didn't like your answers.
-
"Bob's followers" is the literalist version, with the worst possible dynamics. "You should reply to a followers-only post with a followers-only post" retains the same UI choice while completely changing the audience. Most of the other people who read Alice's post won't see Bob's comments. Bob's followers who don't follow Alice won't understand the context of his post, and won't be able to read Alice's post. It also violates Alice's privacy to share a response to her question with strangers.
@evan to be fair this is what is happening when my instance is banning another one where people is commenting in the middle of a thread.
-
@evan @stefan what I *want* is to be able to choose between three things, none of which match what I expect.
A: every reply is essentially a DM from the perspective of the replier, *and* a followers-only boost from the perspective of my followers. Basically a closed group.
B: every reply grows the circle so that the followers of the replier can see the whole conversation. This could be a great default setting.
cont… -
@evan Alices followers only. I am tired of fragmented discussions
@kariboka correct
-
@evan @stefan what I *want* is to be able to choose between three things, none of which match what I expect.
A: every reply is essentially a DM from the perspective of the replier, *and* a followers-only boost from the perspective of my followers. Basically a closed group.
B: every reply grows the circle so that the followers of the replier can see the whole conversation. This could be a great default setting.
cont… -
Thanks to everyone who responded or replied, even if I didn't like your answers.
Oh, one thing that is worth noting: a lot of people insisted on Bob's absolute prerogative to reply with any kind of visibility he wants: public, his followers, whatever.
This is technically true, but Alice also has some agency here. Her server maintains a collection of `replies` that can be used to read all the replies. There's also another collection for the full thread.
Her server can omit replies that violate her expectations. This limits Bob's reach somewhat.
current behavior with the addition that I can boost replies (and replies to replies) so that my followers can all see as much of the thread as I curate. If I don't boost a reply from Bob, a reply to Bob could still be boosted by Bob to Bob's followers, which I may never even see.