'it only works if every fedi software implements it' is such a fallacious point. most of the features it's used against would 100% already be an improvement if only your local instance does it. it's kind of half the point in having a server between people



so what if you forbid replies to your post but pleroma dot hentai dot slurs still replies. well you just drop the reply. solved. yea but they still can reply to it. yea and they can copy paste your post and take a shit under it you literally can't stop them. but you can and should stop extending their platform, and the software they use doesn't matter for this



Also, “they don’t honour the $RESTRICTION flag” is a much less ambiguous reason to defederate than “the are all $BAD_PEOPLE”.

@CobaltVelvet What would you prefer be the case?

What are you hoping to achieve?

@dredmorbius i'm saying that some feature are worth implementing even if they aren't going to be absolutely perfect. typically letting people choose who can reply to their post. even if the remote instance does not support it, it can still be applied locally and do most of its function (discard replies when they aren't welcome)

@CobaltVelvet Do you see any potential issues which might arise with public posts to which replies are specifically limited?

As with most capabilities, consider the question "how might this be used against me?"

And is that a sufficiently significant concern that the feature ought not be implemented?

Say: a head of state or an organisation with an inordinant promotional budget disseminating messages to which others cannot reply or respond?

@dredmorbius what's the difference with already occurring spam? the accepted solution is blocking, reporting, and defederation. the ability to individually reply (or lack of it) to the spam changes nothing

@dredmorbius actually the ever lasting bikeshedding sounds a lot like 'what if trump had a fedi account and i couldnt reply a witty libertarian opinion :/' and my answer is precisely i don't give a fuck and i wouldn't federate with any of them. the problem misplaced and self contained

@CobaltVelvet Despite the fact that I don't participate in either Facebook or Twitter, the utterances of those who do participate there affect my life.

In the case of the former POTUS, US courts held that other Twitter users could not be blocked by their official account.

You might argue that responses aren't necessary. But you're going to have to come up with a validation rather stronger than the false label of "bikeshedding".

@CobaltVelvet Under liberal democratic principles, there's generally a presumed right to respond to or redress a leader.

A political leader isn't a simple spammer. And certain classes of spam aren't addressed only by individual or collective blocking.

A particular leader has both a presumptive significance in their statements, and an ability to establish a narrative. Being able to do so without a capacity for direct response would further amplify that power.

There are other cases which come to mind.

An entity might launch into false claims or reputatonal attacks against an individual or entity whilst denying the target, or their supporters, the right to respond. Again, this creates an ability to attack without consequence or counterdefence.

@dredmorbius i don't support 'political leaders' or their presence on the fediverse. especially not their hypothetical utilization of mastodon as a way to rule. especially not one would could lawfully disable replies.
if mastodon is to be used that way, then it should be regulated appropriately. but it shouldnt.

this is as i expected just copying the 'trump on twitter' problem, but, this isn't twitter, this isn't about the usa and their dysfunctional government, and moreover death to amerika

@dredmorbius basically if your democracy is hanging by a thread and this thread is the fediverse's or twitter's replies, you're fucked my dude time to go on a revolution real quick because democracy is long gone and you're being pedantic about a dream only you can see

@dredmorbius also you can post without making a reply to a post. a post not allowing replies does not hinder your ability to post. and the only reason to assume you have a fundamental right to be officially displayed under someone's replies is that you're stuck in this 'trump on twitter' stage. again this is a ridiculously flawed and not any more 'democracy' than me picking laws based on my daily mood

@CobaltVelvet Yes, it's possible to subtoot.

However the individual tooting to their own followers loses the platform effect of the larger voice.

Again: in a world in which influence is obtainable or transactable, that creates an inherent amplification of a power differential.

The billion-follower profile finding that their own responses also reflect the voices of the 3-follower profile as a consequence levels the conversational playing field. This at least gives the dispossessed some equivalence against them.

(Mind that there may be many such voices in the response. Even given that, it's a larger platform than whistling into the void.)


i don't support 'political leaders' or their presence on the fediverse

That's simply retreating to the shelter of fantasy and argument from consequences.

IF the Fediverse is successful in attracting a significant audience THEN it will be subject to the same attempts at manipulation, control, surveillance, and censorship as any other informational medium. And trust me, those entities won't give any thought to what you do or don't support.

I live in the real world, and whether I support a circumstance or not, if it's possible, I'd best plan accordingly.

@dredmorbius i live in the real world and mastodon is a way for me to communicate, not a way for the us president to maintain a fandom

@CobaltVelvet That's a statement which once could have been said, and was said, of Twitter and Facebook.

Again: in media, the name of the platform doesn't matter. Its size and reach do.

And you're very pointedly ignoring that fact.

@dredmorbius oh facts. twitter is a us based for profit corporation that dealt with the us president. mastodon is a software that i and many use to communicate. twitter has its own privately owned desires. mastodon, if you put aside eugen selfishness, is supposed to help people communicate.

shouldn't we also abolish blocks because people in power might block you?

@CobaltVelvet You're in spaghetti-on-the-wall mode now.

Twitter's ownership / management model has nothing to do with whether or not the powerful can speak without reproach.

Given that the case I alluded to earlier precisely concerned blocks and was found illegal under the same arguments I'm making here, then yes, blocks in at least cases of this nature would be problematic.

(I'm not opposed to blocks in general, as a visit to my profile will make clear.)

And since you raise the matter of blocks, your feature request still meets the rejection test as the functionality you request is already avaiable by that means.

Again: you're simply being incoherent now

@CobaltVelvet And again: Eugen's decision is correct, your proposal is flawed, this discussion is going nowhere (though I appreciate you've clarified your position and requests), and I see no reason in continuing it.

Thank you.

@dredmorbius lmao we do not agree therefore you're crazy pipeline is going well i see. you went into my mentions deal with it or fuck off huh

'was found illegal' and couldn't blocking replies also be found illegal when justified? you see the difference between a power issue and a technical issue, right? you do see that you're full of contradictions?

by the way, it's not 'my feature'. i didn't create it, i didn't propose it. it's widely asked and Turns Out implemented by twitter not so long ago

@CobaltVelvet You're the one who's bringing specific names into this argument, not me.

Just to be crystal clear on that point.

My arguments are specific to power. Not who happens to weild it at any specific time or place.

@dredmorbius dude replace the names it's the same thing. if any power is kept in check by your replies to their post you are deluded in what the power balance actually is. power does not depend on a social media account to rule, it's at best a distraction for the upper class, at worst a cruel game for them.

@CobaltVelvet My question was "do you see any potential issues?"

I think we've established that you do not.

That a point on which we don't agree, and on which I've numerous very serious concerns with your proposal.

I'm with @Gargron here. Rejecting your suggestions is the correct decision.

@dredmorbius @CobaltVelvet I don't know what started this chain but if you want to know why disabling replies isn't as simple as a toggle on the author's server it's because you need 3rd party servers (neither the author's nor the "rogue" replier's) to know when a reply should be displayed or not. If the author is the only one that doesn't see replies to their posts it's a worthless feature in my opinion. I think we have something planned for it though, it's on the wishlist for sure.

@gargron @dredmorbius lmao the only thing you require is the controversial part. love it.
i was arguing basically the opposite (it doesn't matter that it's filtered perfectly for everyone else as long as it's applied to the 'canonical' post representation and for the author, it's good enough and an improvement)

@CobaltVelvet @Gargron @dredmorbius i think discarding replies is something that should be done by the origin server more, it at least prevents shit from showing up for you and for anyone browsing the permalink

tangentially reupping this issue github.com/mastodon/mastodon/i

if a harasser is replying to my posts then i dont care if their followers can see it, i just dont want it polluting my threads for anyone viewing my posts

@dredmorbius@toot.cat @CobaltVelvet@octodon.social are you trying to make a point about government censoring your messages...... on fedi? you have exactly one post to respond and I'm only giving you that much because i am fucking baffled

@heartles That would be a reasonable surmise, yes, and I hope is clear from the toot you're replying to.

That said, I doubt this discussion will do much better than the previous. My goal there was to understand concerns and proposals. That's been accomplished.


@CobaltVelvet lol wow there are some dumb af replies to this

you're 100% right. and trying to make social media work as a huge homogeneous worldwide platform was always a bad idea. some people clearly want masto to be that and federation to just be an implementation detail. it's good for corners of it to make it what we want it to be, and not try to get along all nice and sweet with pleroma dot hentai dot slurs.

also abolish gargron


@CobaltVelvet exactly, 403, fuck off, not accepted


@CobaltVelvet Frequently it's about path of least resistance as well. Even if a setup is not impermeable, if it disallows the simplest attacks, it disallows most attacks in most cases. From the remaining attacks a portion is futile if the victim's attention isn't DDoSed, so if replies are dropped, that too is ineffective.

It's like winter is cold. Even when I wear a thick coat and boots, it's cold. That doesn't mean it's not significantly better than sitting naked on the snow. :cold_ms:

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!