If Alice makes a followers-only post, and Bob replies to it, to whom should Bob's reply be visible?
-
@trwnh like how you hijacked my thread?
@evan well, that's the problem, again -- you see it as "your" thread, and i can't reply without copy-pasting a link to your post and appending "re:"? then appending "cc: evan"? so i can reply but i can't reply using inReplyTo? and you control all 400 posts downstream of your poll, *including the ones that don't mention you*? it's hard to make sense of that...
-
@django @evan we have a few different norms:
1) all posts are implicitly standalone in their own context
2) all posts are implicitly anchored in the context of "the root post"
3) posts are explicitly in certain contexts and not in othersin worldview 3, bob "detaches" his post by setting a different as:context. the problem is that in worldview 2, bob can never use as:inReplyTo without pissing someone off.
"which audience should bob inherit, if any" has a different answer for each worldview...
-
@evan well, that's the problem, again -- you see it as "your" thread, and i can't reply without copy-pasting a link to your post and appending "re:"? then appending "cc: evan"? so i can reply but i can't reply using inReplyTo? and you control all 400 posts downstream of your poll, *including the ones that don't mention you*? it's hard to make sense of that...
@trwnh I mean, at some point, it'd be nice if you start a separate thread.
I talk about branching and grafting in FEP 76ea; I think it's a pretty natural process.
-
@trwnh I mean, at some point, it'd be nice if you start a separate thread.
I talk about branching and grafting in FEP 76ea; I think it's a pretty natural process.
@evan i would if i could!
-
@evan What do current implementations do?
-
By default, if you're replying in a followers-only thread, it should be visible to the same people as what you're replying to. That would usually mean cascading up to the OP. If Bob replies to Alice, then Carol replies to Bob, then all three posts should be visible to all Alice's followers and only Alice's followers.
Bob should have other options - the standard "public", "Bob's followers", and "mentions only" - but it should always be a conscious choice to deviate from the default. If technically possible, allowing the intersection and the union of Alice and Bob's followers would be great additional options. There are plenty of cases where either widening or narrowing the audience for a reply might be appropriate. If Bob does choose something other than default, that would be the new default for Carol's reply to Bob.
I imagine unions and intersections could get very messy in a long thread with multiple people changing the visibility level at different stages; I'm not sure if that poses a real technical problem? Eg Bob replies to (Alice's ∩ Bob's), then Carol replies to ((Alice's ∩ Bob's) ∪ Carol's), and so forth.
Giving the OP the option to restrict replies would be a nice bonus; they could control whether or not changing the visibility in replies is possible.
The current default of "show to Bob's followers" is pretty much the least likely to be what people actually want, and is by far my biggest problem with Fedi.
-
@maj does this help?
-
-
This is a huge thread!
-
@evan it’s a good one, fb vs twitter style replies.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login