If Alice makes a followers-only post, and Bob replies to it, to whom should Bob's reply be visible?
-
@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.
-
@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
Oh... I need to change my answer.
Other: the dark blue-grey.
@evan -
Just visible to Alice unless she accepts the post. And she controls the visibility on her posts.
-
@dahukanna
Oh... I need to change my answer.
Other: the dark blue-grey.
@evan@lazysupper @dahukanna so, in a long conversation, the number of people who can see the responses gets smaller and smaller over time?
