Just an occasional reminder that disabling replies is the #1 requested feature from Mastodon.
https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20sort%3Areactions-%2B1-desc
(EDIT: Direct link, in case the above doesn't work for you: https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/8565)
Limiting who can reply is also worth giving a thumbs-up to, currently at #10.
https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/14762
#mastodon #fediverse #ReplyControls #SocialMedia #TrustAndSafety
I would love that.
Also, Mastodon is (somewhat) behind the times on this one. GoToSocial already has similar settings, and one might even argue that they're more powerful than simply turning replies on or off from the compose box, depending on what "powerful" is supposed to mean. I actually don't really care, though; there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to have this, and the "toggle switch" at the same time; it's not like they're mutually exclusive (or should be).
I'd rather have both.
@the Yeah, it's been a bit frustrating seeing Mastodon, being the far more popular platform, lag behind GTS in this.
It's unfortunate GTS hasn't gained more traction, maybe we'd be in a different position and not have so many people flee to Bluesky, or even back to Twitter/X.
Hopefully not too late to get things right.
I love GTS. It's by far the easiest Fediverse software to self-host, at least on NixOS, at least out of all of them that I've actually tried self-hosting—which, tbf, is not all of them or even most of at this point, but still. I've never written anything in Go myself, or tried to, or learned much if anything about the language itself for that matter, and I'm already a fan just because of this. It can't possibly suck as a language when GTS is already as good as it is.
@the Yeah, GTS is really nice. I've decided to stick with Mastodon, but I've definitely recommended it to people, and will continue to do so!
@stefan I'll take limiting who can reply over denying replies outright, just feels a bit like you want a shortform blog with comments turned off in that case. Could work with some stuff but then it's basically an RSS feed so maybe not much use for a read-only experience on something that encourages read-write like Mastodon.
@nini Yes, this is a common argument against reply controls, but I honestly don't get the issue. If this is how some people want to use social media, so be it. I don't feel the need to reply to everything I read online. If I see something that bothers me, I can always report it.
Plus, maybe some people don't want replies, but will allow quote-boosting? Maybe that works better for some, this is really more about giving people the freedom to decide.
@stefan Choice is not bad, just seems a very blunt instrument.
@nini I hear you, but I have seen far too many people leave because of issues that would've been solved if they had more control over their replies.
And then they tell their friends and those will never give the fediverse a fair chance.
I think people are willing to put up with a lot. Bluesky doesn't let you edit your posts. There is a lower character limit. Translation features are just a link to Google Translate.
But people feel safe there.
I don't even care about the fediverse "growing". I just want people who are already here to feel safe and welcome.
@stefan My objection isn't towards implementing it's a big issue for those who want it and people have their reasons for having the option to control who can interact with their toots besides harassment like just not wanting a reply to a recent toot they made or limiting it to their mutuals. I just feel like it could work in tandem with stronger moderation as read-only toots make me feel despondent, like people don't feel safe but it is just one tool after all.
@nini Oh absolutely, I think we need both tools for "self-defense", and better tools for moderators as well.
Have you seen the latest Mastodon roadmap by any chance?
https://joinmastodon.org/roadmap
> Moderation tools
> Looking at ways to make moderation easier, e.g. shared block lists.
Sounds promising!
@stefan This would also be useful for those accounts that are run by a bot scraping an RSS feed. I'm not too fond of them, but they seem to have a use for some people.
More and more, it seems that Mastodon is just Telegram, if Telegram were designed by idiots. "Microblogging" is a silly conceit held by a minority of silly users. For the majority of users, Mastodon and all others are simply a modern version of IRC chat. The moment you respond to a post- it is chat (or even worse- a web forum).. the moment it becomes interactive, it becomes chat. Nothing more. Micro-blogging is conceptual nonsense. Any linking to an outside URL/website nullifies any conceit of "Micro-blogging".. it once again becomes mere IRC chat pointing to "click and look at my off-fedi website.." The fedi has existed for long enough now. The devs need to sit down and have a reality check. Sluff off any of the old idealism from 2010 that no longer fits or has lost relevance due to the usage patters of the majority.
Really takes the whole social thing out of social.
@renwillis Well, if you think of Mastodon as a "micro blog", and blogs can have their comments disabled, or approved individually, or only allowed for people with privileges, it does kind of make sense?
@stefan I can see that, but I think it's not ideal to just yell out into the void with no feedback. At the very least, people who mutually follow each other - probably healthy to engage with each other.
@renwillis Absolutely! I think accounts that only broadcast without giving anyone a chance to engage would mostly just end up being ignored.
And I think most people would use this feature responsibly, only to protect themselves when a post escapes outside of the intended audience.
@stefan totes!! something I've been thinking about lately was, the one interesting thing Facebook did which I kind of like - they were one of the only social sites that had a forced mutual follow set up.
I wonder how different social would be if all follows had to be mutual?
@renwillis Interesting idea!
Speaking of Big Tech social media, Google+'s Circles were also a pretty neat concept that I would love the fediverse to copy.
Being able to address smaller, specific portions of your audience would really help with context collapse.
@shironeko I'd recommend going through the linked conversations about potential approaches, but in my mind, I'd imagine each server would reject replies that don't match the reply settings.
Yes, there will be servers, either running outdated fediverse software, or designed to ignore the settings, and the replies might be visible there, but their reach will be limited.
Obviously you can't stop people from talking about you in their dark corner far away, just like screenshots easily work around quote permissions. Or someone writing a blog post about you.
Still, what we have now is pretty subpar and I've seen too many people leaving the fediverse because they feel unsafe and unwelcome. And they tell their friends who will never come here.
This has to change.
@shironeko Ignoring them still keeps them visible to others though.
I mean look, not much more here to add, we're discussing the top most upvoted feature request. I think we can trust that people need this.
@shironeko I see what you mean. I guess you can put it that way. So all the servers that respect reply controls will "ignore" the reply and not display it, making it basically invisible to the original poster and pretty much all their followers.
Outdated servers and servers set up to purposefully ignore reply controls can be blocked.
Seems like a pretty good solution.
@stefan If you limit who.can reply there should be a setting to also completely block my ability to see posts I cannot reply to. No point in showing me peoples shitty drive-by takes.
... suppressing discussion has never been a good approach...
@manankanchu Would you consider a blog that has comments disabled a "suppression of discussion"?
Bottom line: https://stefanbohacek.online/@stefan/115940412454524948
> "But what if I have a strong urge to reply to a stranger?"
> Find a more productive way to spend your time.
wrong comparison, I guess...
I'd consider a blog being similar to a newspaper and comments being like readers letters... unsuitable for discussion between blogger and different readers to each other...
bloggers writing crap are simply ignored, tooters writing crap are spread through federal and local timelines to hundreds of thousands like on Twitter.
Such crappy tooters will block replies requiring hundreds of thousand to take action by blocking/reporting... happy times for mods
@manankanchu I think it's a good comparison. Just like I don't owe anyone space on my blog, I also don't owe anyone my time or my audience in my replies here. Or if I print my own newspaper, I don't have to publish every letter to the editor that I receive.
"requiring hundreds of thousand to take action"
As opposed to hundreds of thousands posting the same condescending responses?
You see something that's breaking your server's rules, you report it and move on. You see something you don't like or agree with? You can just move on. Not everything posted online requires a response.
I think this just comes down to people wanting to set their boundaries, and we should all learn to respect that.
@stefan and both are also impossible to implement in a federated network, and I wish everyone finally understood this so we could put this fruitless discussion to rest and move on to things that could actually be improved (like the dismal state of the moderation tools)
@amberage I think these features mean slightly different things to different people, and my impression is that it is possible to provide at least some control to marginalized people who are most often victims of targeted harassment.
If this truly was impossible, I don't think there's much of a point in sticking around the fediverse if we can't ensure everyone feels safe and welcome.
And I'm sure moderation tools can be improved, but these can only be used after the damage has already been done. There have to be better ways for people to defend themselves before an attack, or before moderators can step in.
@stefan I have quite a bunch of ideas for moderation that could prevent harassment in the first place, tbh, but chances of Masto devs ever implementing anything like it are about minus 9000%
What can be implemented re: reply controls is, basically, selective muting. A post could indicate "only people XY may reply" (i.e.: followers), fellow vanilla Mastodon servers would respect that, other ActivityPub software may or may not respect that, and bad actors certainly wouldn't. So while it may hide unwanted replies from cooperating parties, it would only ever do so on a good faith basis.
Twitter could do reply controls because Twitter is one company. All user accounts, all posts, all are owned by Twitter. It rules absolutely, for better or worse. That isn't possible with ActivityPub, where each post, each like, each follow, is just servers sending "hey, I did this thing" announcements into the ether and other servers deciding how to respond.
@amberage What you described is pretty much how I'd imagine this to work. Obviously you can't prevent people from publishing whatever they want on their website, blog, or social media, but there have to be ways to limit their reach.
Also, have you seen Mastodon's updated roadmap?
> Moderation tools
> Looking at ways to make moderation easier, e.g. shared block lists.
https://joinmastodon.org/roadmap
That sounds promising, I think!
@stefan occasional reminder that we are very well aware of this and if it’s not implemented it’s because it is incredibly complex and impossible to do right on all aspects due to the federation, and reaching a compromise on how it should work exactly is not easy.
But that’s near the top of the things we want to do and will happen at some point.
@renchap Completely understand. It's really just frustrating to see the fediverse not being able to live up to its full potential when people leave for platforms where they feel safer.
Well, I trust that you and the rest of the Mastodon team are doing your best. Thank you for that!
@stefan I see the settings and defaults on preferences for quotes, but for replies I've only seen it on misskey. I guess the web browser version had delayed features?
@7adi Sorry, not sure I understand the question. Mastodon does not currently have settings for limiting replies. Or did you mean something else?
@stefan oh I thought it was already implemented since ActivityPub already has it. Yes, about limiting who can reply.
@7adi Ah, got it. Yeah, I am actually not sure where the hold up is now.
I understood that the Mastodon team has been waiting for GoToSocial to write an FEP, but I did see someone else mention recently that this is already possible to do.
And to preemptively address some of the common responses:
"But what if it's misinformation?"
Report it.
"But what if I don't like the post?
Block/mute/ignore.
"But what if I have a strong urge to reply to a stranger?"
Find a more productive way to spend your time.
"You can't solve social issues with technology!"
This doesn't fix the underlying problem of people thinking they are owed someone else's attention and audience, but it does give tools to people who need them to stay safe.
"But..."
This is the most requested feature, come on.
@stefan
But what if I don't want a github account?
Re: Just an occasional reminder that disabling replies is the #1 requested feature from Mastodon.
@stefan@stefanbohacek.online see, my question is... you can limit replies and notifications, but the people on other servers can still reply, they're publishing it out onto the fediverse, it just doesn't reach you. Is that ok from a Trust & Safety perspective?
@julian@activitypub.space @stefan You can't meaningfully stop other people on the internet from trying to send you messages, but the value is in giving you the option to (premptively or post-hoc) decide which ones you're willing to read and to display to onlookers visiting your post.
Private filtering is nice on its own. Reply controls based on GTS-style interaction policies gain additional value through their adoption in the ecosystem at large.
@julian I don't typically deal with abuse online, so maybe not the best person to answer this, but personally, I'd be fine if the reply was hidden from me and only lived on the abuser's server.
I'm guessing third-party servers that implement reply controls also wouldn't see the reply? I guess that should be sufficient.
Obviously you can't prevent people from posting stuff on their own website/blog/etc, but there have to be ways to limit the reach.
@Edent @julian @stefan quote posts don't work, simple as that. Most other AP software implemented them long ago and those softwares don't give a shit about Mastodon's special have-our-cake-and-eat-it-too solution. I turned quotes off, hasn't stopped one Misskey or Pleroma user from quoting me or seeing unauthorised quotes.
All of those limit/approve features, yes that includes blocks, ultimately rely on the good faith of the rest of the network. Whether it's quote approvals, blocks, or any hypothetical reply control, it would only ever amount to muting by a different name.
That's the basic misunderstanding that people have about decentralised networks:
They don't get it that once a message leaves your instance, you lost all control about it.
All this "Don't quote, don't reply, quiet public, followers only, opting out of indexing and search machines etc." is merely a recommendation, but cannot be enforced.
I always say: Only post what would do no harm to you if plastered on a public bathroom's wall or taken to the police.
@mina That is a solid advice, sure. But even completely innocent posts can attract mansplaining, tone policing, and outright racism and sexism, and worse.
I don't typically deal with this stuff myself, but on at least two occasions, after posting some pro-trans articles and messages, I'd have bunch of anti-trans losers show up in my replies.
Easy to block, but I just can't imagine dealing with that daily. Or on a bigger scale. I would probably leave for Bluesky myself.
