Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   hypolite (hypolite@friendica.mrpetovan.com)'s status on Monday, 28-Nov-2022 12:50:34 JST hypolite

   • heluecht
   So, 24 hours later, I can't exactly remember why I ran this poll, but there seems to be two trends emerging:
   

   • The people happy with the feature who don't seem to need any actual safety for their account, the illusion is enough for them.
   • The people confused by its shortcomings who end up dropping it.

   
   
   Like @heluecht , I don't like this half-feature and I think it should be removed. Coincidentally, I believe we should instead implement what Mike McGirvin described in his reply about the "Mutuals only" mode where only people you are mutuals with can react to your posts. Public posts still are public, but no interactions with them would be accepted from contact who aren't mutuals.
   
   It's simpler and it can be enacted at the protocol level, no need to impact existing profile sub-pages.
   
   What do people think about this?
   • Embed this notice
     hypolite (hypolite@friendica.mrpetovan.com)'s status on Monday, 28-Nov-2022 13:26:07 JST hypolite

     in reply to

     • heluecht
     @heluecht The problem isn’t people replying from their own server to a public post of someone who enabled the “Mutuals only” mode, it’s receiving unwarranted comments/likes/mentions on their own server.
   • Embed this notice
     heluecht (heluecht@pirati.ca)'s status on Monday, 28-Nov-2022 13:26:09 JST heluecht

     in reply to

     • heluecht
     @hypolite This "mutual only" would only work if all systems established it. Due to the nature of AP, commenters will distribute their comment on their own. This is something that the "commented on" account can't control.
     
     Means: We can check if there is an commonly agreed way of "you are not allowed to comment here" and we can implement it. But I would only implement the other way when the support is given by most systems. (Same occurs to "comments closed")
   • Embed this notice
     hypolite (hypolite@friendica.mrpetovan.com)'s status on Monday, 28-Nov-2022 22:55:52 JST hypolite

     in reply to

     • wilhelm
     @wilhelm I've been thinking about it some more, and I think we should reuse some of the existing behavior (no access to public profile pages like photos, posts, calendar, etc...) but replace the access permission currently granted to authenticated users on the same node (and magic authenticated visitors) by the mutuals check.
     
     Interactions would be:
     - Displaying (Web UI)/Fetching (Protocol) posts/photos/events, both in list and single form.
     - Searching posts.
     - Liking/Disliking posts.
     - Comment on posts.
     - Direct mentions.
     - Private messages.
     
     Of course the description of the setting should e way more verbose to explain all the effects of it.
   • Embed this notice
     wilhelm (wilhelm@pirati.ca)'s status on Monday, 28-Nov-2022 22:55:55 JST wilhelm

     in reply to

     • heluecht
     @hypolite @heluecht Thanks for your efforts. Was wondering if only allowing reactions from Followers would be sufficient or if indeed mutual following should be the requirement to allow post reactions with the new feature enabled. Just to be clear: reactions is referring to the ability to like, share and comment?
     
     If agreement is, this new feature mainly serves user sanity and keeping their local time free of unwanted comments, that will need to be part of the feature description or even a warning before the feature can be enabled to prevent misunderstandings.
     
     A dezentral feature to limit post interaction would require huge efforts of coordination which, with the current user influx, currently there hardly will be enough capacity for.