Follow

Another thing I really appreciate with @bonfire is that when you hit 'block' on a user it shows you the two aspects of what that means

i.e.

'silence' (I don't want to see this user's posts)

'ghost' (I don't want this user to see my posts)

By default when you hit block they're both ticked with a confirmation button. However, you can choose to untick one when you've fully understood the consequences.

This is good, as I think sometimes we block people who we actually just want to silence

@dajbelshaw @bonfire

OT, but maybe interesting for #bonfire to consider..

I had a recent discussion on fedi, about no longer wanting to participate in an ongoing discussion. Now you must say "Please untag me" and hoping everyone honors that. Temporary block was suggested, but that doesn't work as you miss all discussions of those you block.

Created an #ecko issue about it: github.com/magicstone-dev/ecko

@humanetech @bonfire

Yeah, that is a problem. But it's a problem on *every* platform (including email!)

GMail allows you to mute the conversation thread, but that's a bit more difficult on the Fediverse, I should imagine.

With Bonfire you can name threads, so I guess there might be a way to mute a particular named thread? 🤔

@dajbelshaw @bonfire

This might have federated support on #bonfire (and maybe #ecko too), and a fallback to "Please untag me", but sent via a button click, on non-supporting apps. Well, anyway your toot reminded me of this. It was also on the #Sociocracy thread that Nick Sellen wanted to be untagged :)

@humanetech @bonfire

Yeah, that's right. I don't know how it would work technically, but I know how I'd want it to work from a UX point of view (similar to how you describe!)

@dajbelshaw @humanetech @bonfire I thought masto already had muting conversations? But I guess not, at least not on the mobile app.

@gustavom @humanetech @bonfire You can mute *users* but in threads with multiple people, that can get unwieldy pretty quickly.

(especially, as is likely, you discuss other things with members of that thread regularly...)

@dajbelshaw @humanetech @bonfire Why would that be so difficult? Not sure if I'm being naive, but can't your home instance keep track of the IDs of the posts you do not wish to receive notifications for? So if you are tagged in a reply to that post, your instance can suppress the related notification. Would there be something wrong with this kind of approach?

@dajbelshaw @humanetech @bonfire I guess something like this could also be implemented client-side, but then you'd have to mute the same stuff on each client that you're using.

@junbird @humanetech @bonfire I guess if you see the conversation as a tree, you're potentially interested I the main branch but not the side branches?

@dajbelshaw
@junbird @bonfire

> Would there be something wrong with this kind of approach?

The issue is that you are still in the list of those mentioned. Others assume you are aware of the discussion, and may even direct queries to you (by the convention of putting your handle first). You not responding may then seem rude.

@humanetech @dajbelshaw @junbird @bonfire

The easiest way to respond to a thread, though, is to @ all of the people who are already on the toot. Mentioning somebody up-thread would take a deliberate effort and so would be unlikely as well as not-following-what-would-become the convention.

@bhaugen @dajbelshaw @junbird @bonfire

It is more the 'untagging' of someone that you can just only kindly request for, and then hope people won't forget.

After tooting "please untag me" there's 2 ways to handle with this new functionality.. remove the person from the current branch of the thread, or make is so that any new reply further up the thread and in other forks won't include the handle as well.

'Current branch' is easiest to implement, I guess, and maybe most logical way for this.

@junbird

Yeah it's doable of course, the main technical considerations would be in terms of optimising it to not slow down database queries too much. I have a clarifying question though, would it be more useful to be able to actually silence a thread (=that thread no longer appearing in any of your feeds), or just silence notifications from that thread (=replies or mentions not appearing in your notifications)?

@dajbelshaw @humanetech @bonfire

@mayel @junbird @humanetech @bonfire

I think the issue not just "being notified" (as in attention) but "having notifications" (as in it cluttering up the notifications tab)

@dajbelshaw @junbird @humanetech @bonfire

yeah I meant both of those, but guess it could be granular or configurable

@dajbelshaw @mayel @junbird @bonfire

The functionality that I'd imagine is "Remove me from this discussion".

The effect being:

- My account handle is no longer copied when someone presses 'reply', hence I get no further notifications.

- I can still see the discussion occuring in my personal timeline for the people I follow. I am just not directly involved anymore.

@bonfire @dajbelshaw @mayel @junbird

Technically more involved. But from a functionality perspective that would be the best option.

Silencing would provide me a next-best workaround with aforementioned negative side effect that people think I am still part of the discussion and may direct queries to me, to which I don't respond.

Right now sending a "Please untag me" toot already involves federated messages. This new feature would too, but not supported in all apps, should fallback in others.

@humanetech @bonfire @mayel @junbird

It's not always helpful, but I'm trying to think of IRL analogues to this situation.

However, I think I've realised that it's actually something peculiar to networked conversation, because IRL you can just walk away...

@dajbelshaw @bonfire @mayel @junbird

Yeah, indeed. Especially the 'current branch' one.

"Excuse me. If you talk about this topic I'll walk out of earshot and do other things, but as soon as you pick up on the other topics we were discussing I'll step into the circle again" 😆

@bonfire @dajbelshaw @mayel @junbird

Hey all,
please see also github.com/w3c/activitypub/iss
and come to the meeting, what @humanetech could be a capability for inReplyTo and a fallback could be `inReplyToPolicy` to give a hint if the sender will accept the reply.
Can write a proposal.
Currently we have 6 different implementations all doing it but all different (bonfire, pixelfed, peertube, mobilizon and redaktor (w. pt fallback) and zot).

@humanetech @bonfire @dajbelshaw @mayel @junbird

quickly wrote relevant things from it for the fallback in a gist; but didn't manage to sum up all the implementations before work, might do later
gist.github.com/sebilasse/8ef2

@dajbelshaw @bonfire The only people I've blocked so far are those who are antagonistic, contemptuous or pornographic, or who swarm. I don't want these people to see my toots and either insult me behind my back or bring in other users to swarm me. So I normally block and rarely silence. Either I want to be in the same room as someone or I don't. I don't want to be talking to people without knowing they're there.

The exception is porn bots, but they don't read toots anyway.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Fosstodon

Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.