It always makes me sad when another fedi user - and, in my experience, it is always a woman - says that they feel unsafe posting here, because of replies they get.
-
It always makes me sad when another fedi user - and, in my experience, it is always a woman - says that they feel unsafe posting here, because of replies they get.
Control over who can reply to a toot would be amazing, as a way to improve this without them needing to mute or block post-harm.
@neil Women. Black people. Jews...
-
It always makes me sad when another fedi user - and, in my experience, it is always a woman - says that they feel unsafe posting here, because of replies they get.
Control over who can reply to a toot would be amazing, as a way to improve this without them needing to mute or block post-harm.
You can set it so only followers or people mentioned in a post can see it. Would that not achieve the same result as you cannot reply to what you cannot see.
-
You can set it so only followers or people mentioned in a post can see it. Would that not achieve the same result as you cannot reply to what you cannot see.
@the5thColumnist @neil no – it limits the audience, not what the audience can do. (additionally, the followers-only visibility doesn't do what you think it does – the audience changes with each message.)
-
It always makes me sad when another fedi user - and, in my experience, it is always a woman - says that they feel unsafe posting here, because of replies they get.
Control over who can reply to a toot would be amazing, as a way to improve this without them needing to mute or block post-harm.
@neil the problem is more the server itself, had been on two or tree server, never had the issue (i do not say the issue don't exist), just say that on server with good moderation, the issue is blocked even before starting.
-
Every time I mention this, at least one man pops up to say that they would not want to follow a woman who chooses to restrict replies.
So here, I have covered it in advance
@neil obliging of them to make us aware that they're part of the problem
-
It always makes me sad when another fedi user - and, in my experience, it is always a woman - says that they feel unsafe posting here, because of replies they get.
Control over who can reply to a toot would be amazing, as a way to improve this without them needing to mute or block post-harm.
@neil ah, if only we could persuade the Mastodon team to do that, instead of *checks notes* changing the way profile key-value fields are formatted to something unusable
-
@neil I'm still looking at what's involved in creating subscribeable blocklists. The basic hook into the block functionality on the server is obvious enough, but the list itself involves learning everything about the ActivityPub protocol and the federation and syndication models. Making it useful involves having categorization and user ratings while preventing abuse of them too. Straightforward in concept, terminally hirsute in implementation.
-
@the5thColumnist @neil no – it limits the audience, not what the audience can do. (additionally, the followers-only visibility doesn't do what you think it does – the audience changes with each message.)
I see your point. You want people to be able to see the post but not comment on it. There does not appear to be a way to do that, at least not on the web interface.
-
@HunterZ @neil Did I say anything about it being at the instance level? No, I did not.
The use cases all involve decisions by individual users about which blocklists to subscribe to. It certainly _could_ be used by an instance admin, but we already give them that power by allowing instance-level blocking in the first place. The social issue there isn't subscribeable blocklilsts, it's having an instance admin you can't trust not to block people inappropriately by whatever mechanism.
How do you know whether everyone in a blocklist deserves to be there, how do you get removed if someone puts you there for trivial reasons, etc
-
@the5thColumnist @neil gotosocial implemented such controls, mastodon didn't (i hope that changes, we need that.)
-
Every time I mention this, at least one man pops up to say that they would not want to follow a woman who chooses to restrict replies.
So here, I have covered it in advance
@neil FYI, there is a lot of discussion about what a “no replies” or limited replies feature could look like here:
-
@neil I don't really understand why the 'quotes' feature in Mastodon already has something like this, but basic replies don't. Seems like a missed opportunity.
@seabass @neil Reply controls would require changing how replies work to make them all go via the original poster's server. Currently they go directly to mentioned users (and the replier's followers), and the original poster's server can't do anything about that except reject them locally. This would also allow for fixing follower-only replies (so they go to the original poster's followers rather than to the replier's followers, which results in people seeing random fragments of conversations if they follow only some parties) and making replies federate to all users who see the original post without the need to backfill via non-standard c2s protocols (like fedifetcher does), but good luck getting everyone to implement that.
As for how Mastodon's quote controls work: they kind-of don't. I'm on Akkoma, which has had quote posts long before Mastodon and does not implement Mastodon's quote controls. Nothing prevents me (and nothing can prevent me) from quoting a quote-restricted Mastodon post, although it will (probably, I haven't tested) only appear as an ordinary post with a link to the quoted post on Mastodon, and I think also won't show up under the original post on Mastodon servers (but will on other Akkoma servers and every implementation that doesn't implement Mastodon's quote controls). -
It always makes me sad when another fedi user - and, in my experience, it is always a woman - says that they feel unsafe posting here, because of replies they get.
Control over who can reply to a toot would be amazing, as a way to improve this without them needing to mute or block post-harm.
@neil what an interesting way to dismantle free speech! Think about how your idea can be weaponized before you post it.
-
Every time I mention this, at least one man pops up to say that they would not want to follow a woman who chooses to restrict replies.
So here, I have covered it in advance
@neil First off, those dudes can fuck all the way off. The real problem is that someone will run an alternate version of the server, a la glitch or whatever, that ignores such metadata/flags. There are so many things we give up on my being decentralized... I just don't know man. I wish we could provide an environment where people felt free to express themselves. Sadly the best response to bad-actors might be mob-drown-outs? I wish I was smart enough to give constructive input here.
-
It always makes me sad when another fedi user - and, in my experience, it is always a woman - says that they feel unsafe posting here, because of replies they get.
Control over who can reply to a toot would be amazing, as a way to improve this without them needing to mute or block post-harm.
@neil
It makes me sad in general in any context when people express that they feel unsafe doing what they want to do or expressing themself in any given environment. Yes I hear that 1000 times as often from women as from men because society really is way more unsafe for people that present as female. I feel like Mastodon and Fediverse is an online space where more people feel safe than in general online, so lets not self flagellate about it. But could we do better? Could we make more people feel more safe? 100% yes of course we could. Let's work on that -
@neil First off, those dudes can fuck all the way off. The real problem is that someone will run an alternate version of the server, a la glitch or whatever, that ignores such metadata/flags. There are so many things we give up on my being decentralized... I just don't know man. I wish we could provide an environment where people felt free to express themselves. Sadly the best response to bad-actors might be mob-drown-outs? I wish I was smart enough to give constructive input here.
A server could easily drop any replies that ignore reply controls even if modified owns allow it. In which case it would be "anyone running a server with these modifications can see unauthorized replies to people with reply controls on but to everyone else (including the original poster) they don't exist
That makes them the equivalent of an email chain with a link to the post in it rather than replies
-
@seabass @neil Reply controls would require changing how replies work to make them all go via the original poster's server. Currently they go directly to mentioned users (and the replier's followers), and the original poster's server can't do anything about that except reject them locally. This would also allow for fixing follower-only replies (so they go to the original poster's followers rather than to the replier's followers, which results in people seeing random fragments of conversations if they follow only some parties) and making replies federate to all users who see the original post without the need to backfill via non-standard c2s protocols (like fedifetcher does), but good luck getting everyone to implement that.
As for how Mastodon's quote controls work: they kind-of don't. I'm on Akkoma, which has had quote posts long before Mastodon and does not implement Mastodon's quote controls. Nothing prevents me (and nothing can prevent me) from quoting a quote-restricted Mastodon post, although it will (probably, I haven't tested) only appear as an ordinary post with a link to the quoted post on Mastodon, and I think also won't show up under the original post on Mastodon servers (but will on other Akkoma servers and every implementation that doesn't implement Mastodon's quote controls).@seabass@social.seabass.systems @neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk I think reply controls of the kind that's actually implementable without changing how every implementation does replies (that is, just reject them locally) are already partially possible on Pleroma/Akkoma using MRF (the Message Rewrite Facility). Rejecting replies to a certain user is certainly possible with an MRF filter, the only thing missing is a way for the user to specify this per-post.
-
A server could easily drop any replies that ignore reply controls even if modified owns allow it. In which case it would be "anyone running a server with these modifications can see unauthorized replies to people with reply controls on but to everyone else (including the original poster) they don't exist
That makes them the equivalent of an email chain with a link to the post in it rather than replies
-
It always makes me sad when another fedi user - and, in my experience, it is always a woman - says that they feel unsafe posting here, because of replies they get.
Control over who can reply to a toot would be amazing, as a way to improve this without them needing to mute or block post-harm.
@neil This is one of those cases where it's not really about gender, it's about kyrirarchy, because (for example) people of colour say the same things here.
We need to find ways to make fedi safe for everyone -- across every axis of social power.
-
It always makes me sad when another fedi user - and, in my experience, it is always a woman - says that they feel unsafe posting here, because of replies they get.
Control over who can reply to a toot would be amazing, as a way to improve this without them needing to mute or block post-harm.
@neil fortunately I've not had crazy experiences but I only interact with a very narrow number of people. Also I block enthusiastically. I sometimes will see a random post by a very mean person and block proactively before they find me. It also helps that I am on a well moderated server
