@MastodonEngineering @thenexusofprivacy @mikedev People's choices can be complicated.
-
@MastodonEngineering @thenexusofprivacy @mikedev People's choices can be complicated.
I tried to create a fedidevs starter pack for people who post in Gaelic, since the community is tiny, spread out over multiple servers and thus hard to find.
I DMed everybody to get their consent first and they all said yes, but I could hardly add any of them because they have "appear in profile directories" switched off.
-
@MastodonEngineering @thenexusofprivacy @mikedev People's choices can be complicated.
I tried to create a fedidevs starter pack for people who post in Gaelic, since the community is tiny, spread out over multiple servers and thus hard to find.
I DMed everybody to get their consent first and they all said yes, but I could hardly add any of them because they have "appear in profile directories" switched off.
@MastodonEngineering @thenexusofprivacy @mikedev So, the best I can do right now is to add them as default follow recommendations on my server with my admin powers.
-
@MastodonEngineering @thenexusofprivacy @mikedev So, the best I can do right now is to add them as default follow recommendations on my server with my admin powers.
Yeah, it's all very complext. I want to be able to say something like "no I don't want to appear in profile directories or starter packs in general, but there are some places where I'm willing to make exceptions" but right now I don't think there's are settings to express this preference. And, you had to contact that out-of-system to get consent because there's no in-system mechanism, and that might not work if they don't accept DMs from people they don't know. Iideally there would both a default and a mechanism to request consent for adding to start packs / follower recommendations / profile directories that people could (if they wanted to) enable ... oh but that might be prone to abuse, so there should be an option to restricted it to followers or mutuals etc. Is there any way to choose defaults which make that usable in practice?
And Mike, I really do appreciate the perspective!
-
Yeah, it's all very complext. I want to be able to say something like "no I don't want to appear in profile directories or starter packs in general, but there are some places where I'm willing to make exceptions" but right now I don't think there's are settings to express this preference. And, you had to contact that out-of-system to get consent because there's no in-system mechanism, and that might not work if they don't accept DMs from people they don't know. Iideally there would both a default and a mechanism to request consent for adding to start packs / follower recommendations / profile directories that people could (if they wanted to) enable ... oh but that might be prone to abuse, so there should be an option to restricted it to followers or mutuals etc. Is there any way to choose defaults which make that usable in practice?
And Mike, I really do appreciate the perspective!
@thenexusofprivacy @MastodonEngineering @mikedev There could be a setting "anybody" / "accounts in your social graph" / "no one" for requests to add, and then you still confirm the addition to each starter pack individually. The setting could default to "accounts in your social graph".
-
@thenexusofprivacy @MastodonEngineering @mikedev There could be a setting "anybody" / "accounts in your social graph" / "no one" for requests to add, and then you still confirm the addition to each starter pack individually. The setting could default to "accounts in your social graph".
@thenexusofprivacy @MastodonEngineering @mikedev Oh, and of course an option to remove yourself later if you change your mind.
-
@thenexusofprivacy @MastodonEngineering @mikedev Oh, and of course an option to remove yourself later if you change your mind.
Yeah. And maybe also something about different policies for people who aren't in my social graph who are on my own instance (or ptentially in a bubble of friendly instances). I's complex enough that I can see why people haven't tackled it yet.
More positively, the same kind of default / requestable-by-some kind of decision also applies to other situtations -- somebody requesting I bridge to Bluesky, for example, or somebody wanting to add me to a list, or even requests to follow (approve by default if I'm already following somebody and silencing instances are both special cases of this). So a usable and relatiely-easy-to-understand general mechanis along these lines could be useful in a lot of different places.
-
Yeah. And maybe also something about different policies for people who aren't in my social graph who are on my own instance (or ptentially in a bubble of friendly instances). I's complex enough that I can see why people haven't tackled it yet.
More positively, the same kind of default / requestable-by-some kind of decision also applies to other situtations -- somebody requesting I bridge to Bluesky, for example, or somebody wanting to add me to a list, or even requests to follow (approve by default if I'm already following somebody and silencing instances are both special cases of this). So a usable and relatiely-easy-to-understand general mechanis along these lines could be useful in a lot of different places.
What does "in my social graph" mean? Followers (makes no sense in this context), followed (only barely more sensible), 2nd degree, either way, same server? Once you start thinking about it, it's fractal complexity.
-
What does "in my social graph" mean? Followers (makes no sense in this context), followed (only barely more sensible), 2nd degree, either way, same server? Once you start thinking about it, it's fractal complexity.
@osma I was trying to shorthand followers/followed/mutuals. We should not expand beyond that, because second degree relationships (like Facebook friends of friends) aren't under the user's direct control, and it would indeed make things too confusing.
-
@osma I was trying to shorthand followers/followed/mutuals. We should not expand beyond that, because second degree relationships (like Facebook friends of friends) aren't under the user's direct control, and it would indeed make things too confusing.
well that's one opinion, but a Starter Pack only available to existing followers is... eh?
in the real world, people meet others through 2nd and 3rd degree connections.
@gunchleoc @thenexusofprivacy @MastodonEngineering @mikedev -
well that's one opinion, but a Starter Pack only available to existing followers is... eh?
in the real world, people meet others through 2nd and 3rd degree connections.
@gunchleoc @thenexusofprivacy @MastodonEngineering @mikedev@osma @thenexusofprivacy @MastodonEngineering @mikedev It's not about who can see the starter pack, it's about which starter packs you want to be listed in and who is allowed to add you to one.
-
@osma @thenexusofprivacy @MastodonEngineering @mikedev It's not about who can see the starter pack, it's about which starter packs you want to be listed in and who is allowed to add you to one.
I mean, it could also be about who can see the starter pack. On my personal account, if somebody is high-profile but doesn't have a huge number of followers because they're selective about accepting follow requests, I'd be more likely to opt in to a followers-only starter pack (or recommended follows).
Agreed that it's potentially fractal complexity, so maybe the "usable and relatively-easy-to-understand general mechanism along these lines" I talked about isn't possible. Smple defaults of "highiy visible" / "not-so-visible", and ability to override in specific cases, might well turn out to be the best option. But I do think there's at least potentially the ability to do better, and it's useful to think of it as a general-purpose mechanism.
