@puniko@mk.absturztau.be yeah well it doesnt, thats why the option to use public makes sense (for replies without private information of the parent post)
@puniko@mk.absturztau.be if it would restrict to my followers and the parents posts followers, that would be debatable. but as far as i know it does not. it just cuts of a thread.
@puniko@mk.absturztau.be i do not see how it is supposed to do what it is supposed to do, because "followers" are not the same from every viewpoint. and i could list a hundred situations where there is no need for restricting in the first place.
@puniko@mk.absturztau.be by replying public i do not make the parent post visible. if that happens, that needs to be fixed. the only thing i am doing is making my own post, my own words, my own frickin copyrighted material public. people are careless, yes, but an info box would help. and people are careless with their followers too, as the auto-allow feature shows
i am seriously unhappy with this feature. mostly because it does nothing it (probably) aims to achieve. unless "followers only" is now "followers of parent post only", which, again, i would be seriously unhappy with. if i allow carelessly every follower, the reply will reach just any random person that can choose to do whatever they want with the information. it doesnt make any sense to restrict scope, what would make sense is an information box and maybe even confirmation button that no private information of the parent post has been shared
pleasemaybesoon™ maplefeli:badgefox1::badgefox2:#notyourlawyerrule: be comfy and friendly.this is a misskey instance so you might want to check out "view on original instance"i very much love my maple bf ? ^ this is an understatement#nobot