Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Tim Chambers (tchambers@indieweb.social)'s status on Friday, 10-Apr-2026 17:48:58 JST Tim Chambers

   • dansup

   Cool to see #loops starter kits evolve fast. Some quick notes @dansup - and I'll start wth maybe a touchy one: I do think you should consider makng them "opt out" rather than opt in.
   This kit which I did as an experiment is still only 2 opted in users: https://loops.video/starter-kits/eD7Lkwxplw/guardians-of-the-fediverse

   (I know some of that is server compatablity but I don't think all)

   Secondly: "Use Kit" from a UX perspective is a bit vague, I THINK it means "follow all" but not 100 percent sure. Even after clicking on "use kit."

   • Embed this notice
     :PUA: Shlee fooled around & (shlee@aus.social)'s status on Friday, 10-Apr-2026 18:09:04 JST :PUA: Shlee fooled around &

     in reply to

     • dansup

     @tchambers @dansup wait.. what's opt-in/opt-out mean for this?

   • Embed this notice
     dansup (dansup@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 10-Apr-2026 18:09:04 JST dansup

     in reply to

     • :PUA: Shlee fooled around &

     @shlee @tchambers So basically you can only add accounts to Starter Kits that support a new Actor attribute (interactionPolicy.canFeature)* and then if they require approval, they need to approve or reject inclusion into each Kit with a public attestation object that proves they accepted inclusion publicly.

     Now in Loops, you opt to allow anyone to add you without approval, but this opt-in nature is fundamental to Loops + Mastodon's implementation.

     * - https://browser.pub/https://loops.video/@dansup

   • Embed this notice
     dansup (dansup@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 10-Apr-2026 18:11:41 JST dansup

     in reply to

     @tchambers We need to proceed with opt-in as that is fundamental to our implementation, along with Mastodons.

     A potential solution to this is sending an email notification to pending accounts in the Kit to inform them they need to approve or reject inclusion.

     As for the UX of the button, yeah I will improve that! Thanks for the feedback <3

   • Embed this notice
     Tim Chambers (tchambers@indieweb.social)'s status on Friday, 10-Apr-2026 20:18:40 JST Tim Chambers

     in reply to

     • dansup
     • :PUA: Shlee fooled around &

     @dansup @shlee OK allowing users to default let anyone add them to starter kits is a good start. Thanks, and am glad to hear you might rethink "use kit" from an UX perspective. I think those both help.

   • Embed this notice
     Tim Chambers (tchambers@indieweb.social)'s status on Friday, 10-Apr-2026 20:20:14 JST Tim Chambers

     in reply to

     • dansup
     • :PUA: Shlee fooled around &

     @dansup @shlee

     And I respect that opt-in was a deliberate, maximal privacy-strong choice. But I'd encourage keeping the door open to an opt-out model down the road.

     My own take only: Opt-out still preserves user agency and privacy while making kits much more functional. And if immediate opt-out feels too aggressive, a delayed model could work: notify users they've been added, give them 48 hours to opt out before the listing goes live. Privacy-respecting, but functional by default.

   • Embed this notice
     dansup (dansup@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 10-Apr-2026 20:26:27 JST dansup

     in reply to

     • :PUA: Shlee fooled around &

     @tchambers @shlee The challenge with that is there is no universal way to opt-out for other software, unless we build a bot type account that users can DM, and even then, there would be no way to verify their attestation for other servers.

     I do think a campaign could help bring awareness to this, and perhaps Loops could change the default privacy from opt-in to allow-all, but that would only affect Loops accounts.

   • Embed this notice
     dansup (dansup@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 10-Apr-2026 20:32:46 JST dansup

     in reply to

     • :PUA: Shlee fooled around &

     @shlee @tchambers That is exactly what we're doing!

     ```
     "interactionPolicy": {
     "canFeature": {
     "automaticApproval": [],
     "manualApproval": [
     "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
     ]
     }
     }
     ```

     https://browser.pub/https://loops.video/@dansup

   • Embed this notice
     :PUA: Shlee fooled around & (shlee@aus.social)'s status on Friday, 10-Apr-2026 20:32:47 JST :PUA: Shlee fooled around &

     in reply to

     • dansup

     @dansup @tchambers id love a safetyLevel/personaType at the account metadata as a standard

     Stop assuming things for me. Etc etc

   • Embed this notice
     Tim Chambers (tchambers@indieweb.social)'s status on Friday, 10-Apr-2026 20:36:08 JST Tim Chambers

     in reply to

     • dansup
     • :PUA: Shlee fooled around &

     @dansup @shlee That makes sense — the cross-server problem is real and I don't want to hand-wave past it.

     Even so, a Loops-only default change to allow-all (or a delayed allow-all) would be a meaningful signal for the ecosystem and might be a step worth considering.

     Is it clear yet how Mastodon "Collections" will work in this regard?