R
@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.
@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
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.
@ZenHeathen @evan
In your opinion.
What's the point of starting a Followers only thread if anyone can trivially make it all public. That's not how chat groups or a conversation in the office works.
"Followers only" a is pointless feature if all followers of each person replying see it.
@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.
@twobiscuits @evan
You can make posts that are only visible to those mentioned.
@ZenHeathen @evan
Yes it should. It's Alice's conversation. Only Alice's followers if she marked it thus
Except Mastodon will show it to anyone mentioned by bob. Which is broken. Even if it was private to Alice and Bob.
@plwt @firefoxwebdevs
Short answer, if you think that you are completely wrong about how a program should do a gui. You are writing about something with a custom skin, not a well behaved program. Even a QT based program can follow an arbitrary OS look and feel. Java can. So instead of creating and styling a funky scrollbar you FW tells OS: Scrollbar here this orientation & length.
Winamp was 1st I encountered ignoring OS.
@plwt @firefoxwebdevs
Only if your SW is broken and simply getting a window, then drawing its own controls. Perhaps years ago Firefox was changed to use its own renderer and CSS instead of system API calls for all controls etc.
I can even do a custom theme on Mint+ Mate, Win98, XP, Win7 and well written programs look native.
How can you even know the Look & Feel? The entire concept of Firefox GUI must now broken.
That would explain the garbage scrollbars.
@plwt @firefoxwebdevs
It was a survey about inclusion of AI that didn't ask if it was even wanted.
It's disingenuous to suggest it's not related to Firefox.
@plwt @firefoxwebdevs
No it's simpler. unless you are using a broken framework. I was writing desktop SW 15 years ago and without ANY extra work it used the Mac, Redhat, Ubuntu, XP or Vista theme in use.
Most programs on XP, Win7, Win10, Linux etc use the current theme.
@firefoxwebdevs @plwt
Unfortunately no-one is trustworthy. The results are dubious and entire page via browser (tested in Chromium & Firefox) is misleading and a privacy horror.
Hence I'll copy / paste fragments for translation.
A web browser should NOT be a platform, but simply render web pages for screen or "print" (which might be PDF).
Print is still abysmal.
Also it's obnoxious that the browser GUI ignores the OS GUI / theme/style and imposes an idiot one.
@firefoxwebdevs @plwt
What Vivaldi says or does is irrelevant.
Mozilla did a stupid survey that didn't actually ask if people wanted AI or ML at all.
Most people just want a browser. No need for an AI off switch as there is no reason to have ANY ML or AI of ANY kind in the first place.
Mozilla by any sane metric has been making Thunderbird and Firefox worse for years. I used them practically from release on XP till 2016.
I used Waterfox with Classic Theme restorer for a while after GUI bork.
@firefoxwebdevs @plwt
I've not used Vivaldi since last year:
Fast, reliable answers and still in trust: Qwant does not store your search data, does not sell your personal data and is hosted in Europe.
Qwant (www.qwant.com)
They claim to not have AI.
I use copy / paste to https://libretranslate.com/ if I need translation.
There is no Cloud. Only other people's servers!
@plwt @firefoxwebdevs
Because for security I block all 3rd party scripts that don't result in site breaking. Not about adverts per-se.
The most likely route for malware today is 3rd party scripts. BBC & CNN have served them. That it often blocks adverts is a side effect. I'm not caring about adverts the actual site hosts.
Vivaldi's blocker is all or nothing, so with script blocking there are pop-up banners and the fold V or close X is missing.
@plwt @firefoxwebdevs
The word "happily" is out of context.
I have used Chrome (Android/ChromeOS)_, Edge (windows), IE (various cursed versions on Windows) and Safari (Apple Things) to "browse the web" and get a different browser such as Firefox, seamonkey, Vivaldi, Waterfox, Chromium and others.
I'd be on Vivaldi if about:config didn't exist. The only reason I'm not is more flexible script blocking on Firefox to suit TheGuardian web news.
@firefoxwebdevs
You are missing the point!
The features should not exist! So then no need for a master switch in the main settings.
Firefox has got so broken it needs loads of settings changed in About.config and even then is LESS USEABLE than 10 or 15 years ago.
I've been using Websites since 1994. Mosaic, Netscape, Firefox.
Of course I've used most of the others.
@firefoxwebdevs
And WHY were these "True" by default?
Why once even re-enabled?
Mozilla isn't trustworthy.
The so-called ML is an invasion of privacy and a waste of computing resource.
Go back to a Classic Firefox that's ONLY a browser and repects OS GUI look & feel instead of copying Google.
@firefoxwebdevs @ArneBab
No, you've lost the plot!
@firefoxwebdevs
Why not ship a version with ZERO AI?
