S
spraoi@tooting.ch
Posts
-
If Alice makes a followers-only post, and Bob replies to it, to whom should Bob's reply be visible? -
If Alice makes a followers-only post, and Bob replies to it, to whom should Bob's reply be visible?@steely_glint @evan I like it. It's a good solution. But it does risk burying dissent in some corner cases.
-
If Alice makes a followers-only post, and Bob replies to it, to whom should Bob's reply be visible?So that etiquette would demand that Bob limit the visibility of his reply to just Alice, and let her decide how far it should reach beyond that. There's a certain grace there, but does the etiquette of telephony translate to microblogging?
-
If Alice makes a followers-only post, and Bob replies to it, to whom should Bob's reply be visible?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.
-
If Alice makes a followers-only post, and Bob replies to it, to whom should Bob's reply be visible?@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.
-
If Alice makes a followers-only post, and Bob replies to it, to whom should Bob's reply be visible?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.
-
If Alice makes a followers-only post, and Bob replies to it, to whom should Bob's reply be visible?@evan but Alice wanted her followers and only her followers to see the original post, right? So is it an invasion of the public circle that comprises those followers to spread out further via Bob's reply? Note that I'm very carefully avoiding the word "private". These are limited public spaces.
The only conclusion I can reach is that the ability to post to followers only, since anybody can follow anybody, blocks excepted, is to impose a sort of embargo on what is still a public expression.
-
If Alice makes a followers-only post, and Bob replies to it, to whom should Bob's reply be visible?Showing the comment to just Alice's followers raises a different risk. What if Bob's comment is a good faith critique, but runs against the conventional wisdom within the majority of Alice's followers? Will Bob be potentially drummed out of Alice's circle? This is regardless of the relative merits of the argument.
The outcome would deprive Alice's followers and Alice of a potentially interesting viewpoint. Not to mention the potential for hard feelings.
-
If Alice makes a followers-only post, and Bob replies to it, to whom should Bob's reply be visible?@evan this is really hard. But thankfully I've been trying to train myself to think about potentials for abuse.
Showing the comment to just Bob's followers creates the risk that Bob and followers will create an echo chamber opposed to Alice's original sentiment, and worse towards Alice herself. That's bad, and reminds of cliquish negativity that you find in adolescent groups and office environments.