Mario VavtiDo we want to rename "Privacy groups" to "Access lists" and "Forums" to "Groups" in Hubzilla 7.0?
Yes
No
I have a better idea and will post it in the comments
Poll ended at .
In fact, i think, you are just mixing up the functionality of a forum channel (called group in other fedi projects) and privacy groups. Privacy groups are none of your contacts business. It is a way for the channel owner to organize their contacts. A forum (group) channel is where contacts can join and leave to their liking...
tombeau"Private Groups" may be? Depending on if the are really private as "private" in ZOT.
"Forum" is a bit misleading,
(I did not vote.)
"Forum" is a bit misleading,
(I did not vote.)
Witcraft (Hubzilla)@hEARt PhoniX Sorry to oppose here, but I do think these questions are interdependent.
It would be good style of definition to be unambiguous, and therefore, I would not recommend using privacy groups vs. groups. I would either change privacy group to something else (social circle, access list, or the like), or specify the other type of group ( e.g. discussion group, group channel, or the like).
It would be good style of definition to be unambiguous, and therefore, I would not recommend using privacy groups vs. groups. I would either change privacy group to something else (social circle, access list, or the like), or specify the other type of group ( e.g. discussion group, group channel, or the like).
Einer von VielenI should have ask befor commenting, what is the difference :-(
@Einer von Vielen Not sure what you mean (difference between what?).
AFAIK, background is purely wording. In another discussion, there was a bit of confusion about the term "forum" because, usually, this term refers to a bulletin board style format with several categories to sort discussion threads - whereas the Hubzilla forum style format is usually referred to as "group" or "discussion group" in social network services or the typical messengers. Mario took the opportunity to ask the community if there is interest to rename towards a more intuitive / widely used wording, or rather stick with the wording Hubzilla has been using in the past.
AFAIK, background is purely wording. In another discussion, there was a bit of confusion about the term "forum" because, usually, this term refers to a bulletin board style format with several categories to sort discussion threads - whereas the Hubzilla forum style format is usually referred to as "group" or "discussion group" in social network services or the typical messengers. Mario took the opportunity to ask the community if there is interest to rename towards a more intuitive / widely used wording, or rather stick with the wording Hubzilla has been using in the past.
I still do not see the real difference of privacy groups and forums in praxis - for newbees (including myself I admit). I mean in terms of the ACLs applied to them.
The difference I would get is somthing like
The wording could be group, circle,...
Despite of the wording the only difference would be the word private.
To be honest I never really got the difference of all those groups, forums,... and their changing meanings over time or more precisly I just did not care as long as I could use the lock button.
What is the message of my post? Hmm, not sure... The most important think might be that the average (not so interested user) is able to understand. I guess most just get the meaning of the lock button right.You could just use "group" and give the user an extra lock button to indicate that somthing is really private.
The difference I would get is somthing like
- groups: (notification/write permission/... to) group members AND readable for all others)
- private groups (group members only)
The wording could be group, circle,...
Despite of the wording the only difference would be the word private.
To be honest I never really got the difference of all those groups, forums,... and their changing meanings over time or more precisly I just did not care as long as I could use the lock button.
What is the message of my post? Hmm, not sure... The most important think might be that the average (not so interested user) is able to understand. I guess most just get the meaning of the lock button right.You could just use "group" and give the user an extra lock button to indicate that somthing is really private.
And what avarage user would know the meaning of an access list. I do not know either - honestly.
I know ACLs.
So, is access list a group with an access list behind? Is a group more private, or more public.
I am just thinking. I use this software for many years.... Still not know without asking somebody.
If you look at the code you have just an observer and then an ACL for reading and writing (mostly) diveded in single users and a group of users. This is an easy and powefull concept. The only GUI implementation I clearly understand is the lock button and that you can choose single persons or a group. If the lock button is open it is public.
So I never got the idea to have more than one type of group.
A forum would be a kind of APP like a Wiki or a foto gallery in my world.
I do not want to be provocativ! I just think the average user won't get the difference of an access list and a group without asking or reading. But many do not ask or read and might feel helpless, annoyed, angry,...
And switch to a sotware that is easier for then.
I know ACLs.
So, is access list a group with an access list behind? Is a group more private, or more public.
I am just thinking. I use this software for many years.... Still not know without asking somebody.
If you look at the code you have just an observer and then an ACL for reading and writing (mostly) diveded in single users and a group of users. This is an easy and powefull concept. The only GUI implementation I clearly understand is the lock button and that you can choose single persons or a group. If the lock button is open it is public.
So I never got the idea to have more than one type of group.
A forum would be a kind of APP like a Wiki or a foto gallery in my world.
I do not want to be provocativ! I just think the average user won't get the difference of an access list and a group without asking or reading. But many do not ask or read and might feel helpless, annoyed, angry,...
And switch to a sotware that is easier for then.
xavavuThe general usage around the fediverse lately seems to be Groups for what Hubzilla currently refers to as Forums. I think Friendica still calls them "forums" though. So changing Forums to Groups makes sense IMO.
As for Privacy Groups, my suggestion is Circles. The term was used in G+ for essentially the same thing; to share certain content with a select group of people. It sounds, to me, less tech-oriented and more general audience friendly.
As for Privacy Groups, my suggestion is Circles. The term was used in G+ for essentially the same thing; to share certain content with a select group of people. It sounds, to me, less tech-oriented and more general audience friendly.
@chava
As for Privacy Groups, my suggestion is Circles. The term was used in G+ for essentially the same thing; to share certain content with a select group of people. It sounds, to me, less tech-oriented and more general audience friendly.
Nextcloud uses the term circles in the sane way. I like it.
@Einer von Vielen
a forum (or in future maybe, gyro) is a place, a home, too where other people can subscribe to receive and post messages to discuss, like a mailing list. The support channel is a forum.
A privacy group is what you said: a standard selection of connections I can add to the ACL in one step, without having to add them all individually each time., e.g. all my family members, all my colleagues, my closest friends.
As for Privacy Groups, my suggestion is Circles. The term was used in G+ for essentially the same thing; to share certain content with a select group of people. It sounds, to me, less tech-oriented and more general audience friendly.
Nextcloud uses the term circles in the sane way. I like it.
@Einer von Vielen
a forum (or in future maybe, gyro) is a place, a home, too where other people can subscribe to receive and post messages to discuss, like a mailing list. The support channel is a forum.
A privacy group is what you said: a standard selection of connections I can add to the ACL in one step, without having to add them all individually each time., e.g. all my family members, all my colleagues, my closest friends.
Waitman GobbleANSI INCITS 359 RBAC is better than ACLs IMHO, role based authentication. I've been tinkering with it for awhile but have not finished my project.
ACLs don't seem to work well with organizations spread out into various geographic areas, departments, etc.
https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/Role-Based-Access-Control
ACLs don't seem to work well with organizations spread out into various geographic areas, departments, etc.
https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/Role-Based-Access-Control
Role Based Access Control | CSRC | CSRC
One of the most challenging problems in managing large networks is the complexity of security administration. Role based access control (RBAC) (also called 'role based security'), as formalized in 1992 by David Ferraiolo and Rick Kuhn, has become the predominant model for advanced access control because it reduces this cost. This project site explains RBAC concepts, costs and benefits, the economic impact of RBAC, design and implementation issues, the RBAC standard, and advanced research topics. The NIST model for RBAC was adopted as American National Standard 359-2004 by the American National Standards Institute, International Committee for Information Technology Standards (ANSI/INCITS) on February 11, 2004. It was revised as INCITS 359-2012 in 2012. See the RBAC standard section for more information. New to RBAC? see: Primary RBAC References and Background | RBAC FAQ | RBAC Case Studies. Implementing RBAC? start with: Role Engineering and RBAC Standards | RBAC Case Studies. Researcher or student? see...
MarkI would prefer circles for privacy groups and topics for a forum? I actually like the term forum, but the way it is implemented in Hubzilla does not look like a forum at all to the casual user. In a forum people are used to different "topics", whilst in Hubzilla creating a "forum" post is actually just one topic and not an entire forum?
Just spitballing here :)
Just spitballing here :)
Ema エマ@Mark
topics for a forum
I actually like Marks idea. Or even "Topic channel", and in plural "Topic channels", to make it clear that we're actually talking about channels.
topics for a forum
I actually like Marks idea. Or even "Topic channel", and in plural "Topic channels", to make it clear that we're actually talking about channels.
@emanuel @ la bonne heure any channel can be a topic channel. The word topic does not say anything about how such a channel works. Namely that members can post to it via direct messages and the postet content will be re-distributed to all other members.
@Mario Vavti
Namely that members can post to it via direct messages and the postet content will be re-distributed to all other members.
Then maybe naming it "Distributing channel"?
Namely that members can post to it via direct messages and the postet content will be re-distributed to all other members.
Then maybe naming it "Distributing channel"?
I would prefer circles for privacy groups and topics for a forum?
I like this too.
Everybody can discuss topics as in real life. Not everybody is allowed to enter a group/circle as in real life. This should be easy to grasp.
I like this too.
Everybody can discuss topics as in real life. Not everybody is allowed to enter a group/circle as in real life. This should be easy to grasp.
@Einer von Vielen a group can be private aswell...
I see where you guys are coming from. Usually, groups are constituted around a mutual interest, or property (family, Wotton place). But so is nearly everything else in communication. Every hubzilla item (post, wiki, file folder, calendar, blog, etc.) can be assigned a topic, so it is not the differentiating definition of a channel to discuss stuff. And you can have non-group channels that are dedicated to a specific topic, just as you can have discussions in the same circle of friends about different topics. The key differentiating factor is: Is this channel dedicated to host posts from external channels.
Aside from personal preference, I think most intuitive for people accustomed to other social systems would be anything in the line of (discussion) group (channel), and (social) circle (of connections).
Maybe English mother tongue speakers could contribute an interesting perspective, too...
Aside from personal preference, I think most intuitive for people accustomed to other social systems would be anything in the line of (discussion) group (channel), and (social) circle (of connections).
Maybe English mother tongue speakers could contribute an interesting perspective, too...
Mike MacgirvinWhatever you decide to call them, Circles and Aspects and Privacy Groups are nothing more than personal mailing lists. Groups/Forums are nothing but listservs or USENET newsgroups or externally defined lists. You can call them Foo and Bar if you want. One is a list you create/manage yourself and one is a list that is managed by a membership workflow which others can initiate. That's really as deep as it goes.
@mike
You can call them Foo and Bar if you want.
True.
I think a lot of companies try to confuse people by branding their just-as-everybody-else functions to their specific wording ("Thank you" > "like" > "+1" > "up") - Where it might be more user-friendly and low-threashold to align wording to common language (unless you have the marketing budget to align common language to your wording).
You can call them Foo and Bar if you want.
True.
I think a lot of companies try to confuse people by branding their just-as-everybody-else functions to their specific wording ("Thank you" > "like" > "+1" > "up") - Where it might be more user-friendly and low-threashold to align wording to common language (unless you have the marketing budget to align common language to your wording).
@mike technically you are right.
But in The Netherlands we call a microwave oven a "Magnetron". The magnetron is the actual working element that heats up your food (and emits the microwaves). So we Dutch might be technically correct: no one besides us will understand.
My advice: do not name it foo and bar ;)
A lot of projects forget it will be the users that actually make a piece of software useful. You can make a great program, but forget the eye candy and naming and it will never get any traction...
I asked some complete novice users about what program they wanted to use for their "Facebook alternative". Most liked the way diaspora* looks, feels and works. But it has no groups, so that was just not an option. Now we are testing Hubzilla, but I am struggling to explain non tech minded users how channels/forums/privacy groups differ and how they work.
But in The Netherlands we call a microwave oven a "Magnetron". The magnetron is the actual working element that heats up your food (and emits the microwaves). So we Dutch might be technically correct: no one besides us will understand.
My advice: do not name it foo and bar ;)
A lot of projects forget it will be the users that actually make a piece of software useful. You can make a great program, but forget the eye candy and naming and it will never get any traction...
I asked some complete novice users about what program they wanted to use for their "Facebook alternative". Most liked the way diaspora* looks, feels and works. But it has no groups, so that was just not an option. Now we are testing Hubzilla, but I am struggling to explain non tech minded users how channels/forums/privacy groups differ and how they work.
Hans van Zijst@Mark
Now we are testing Hubzilla, but I am struggling to explain non tech minded users how channels/forums/privacy groups differ and how they work.
Hubzilla would be a great alternative, but it looks a bit clunky when compared to Facebook. And the learning curve is probably a tiny bit steeper too. I'm still struggling every now and then. Can't seem to send private messages, for example :-D
Try explaining #Matrix / #Element to non-techies... I've done that for a few years and succeeded in getting quite some of my friends on board, but some keep complaining that it's "difficult". Which it is, if you compare it to the messaging app from the Evil Empire.
Now we are testing Hubzilla, but I am struggling to explain non tech minded users how channels/forums/privacy groups differ and how they work.
Hubzilla would be a great alternative, but it looks a bit clunky when compared to Facebook. And the learning curve is probably a tiny bit steeper too. I'm still struggling every now and then. Can't seem to send private messages, for example :-D
Try explaining #Matrix / #Element to non-techies... I've done that for a few years and succeeded in getting quite some of my friends on board, but some keep complaining that it's "difficult". Which it is, if you compare it to the messaging app from the Evil Empire.
oRx-Qx pirateradio@Mario Vavti Oh yes, sorry, I meant App.
I was flying my debug drone over Hubzilla Cybercity UI some more, eventually shot some bugs
Adressing PG results in lock icon with alt-text Private message. It is nothing channel-related, it is something like Group Direct Message. What matters: Do people know to whom it is addressed? If they are just on BCC, the actual group (or access list) should be Undisclosed recipients.
As it is not a channel message (to channel contacts) it should be a Group DM (with DM icon) now it is something in between: kind of App message, with the App being Privacy Groups, with the icon of lock.
The app has the same icon as Connections, so showing the message with its app icon would be mistaken with posting to channel connections. Maybe the app icon should be having a lock on side of the silhouettes. And such icon should be next to name at the message header.
This visibility turns CC instead of BCC or does it create group/access list public with some identity like Channel? How do people know they are on this list and who sees the posts/comments? Does it create something like unvoluntary Google Group? Should this be called Circle? Can people leave/unsubscribe or block PG? Can connections comment and see others comment in both states of the switch? In state when members are not disclosed, should they see others comments? Probably not. Should not that be a Direct message then? Or Undisclosed Group Direct message (Bcc}?
What was called Private Message created with Privacy groups App is in Public and restricted messages in HQ. On forum channel, there is no message, so the Forum channel should not be allowed as recipient (Privacy group member). Maybe the switch in previous image should be formulated in opposite (members are undisclosed) default On the right side. And here it would move them from left tab (Public and public named lists) right to the DM and Undisclosed Group DM tab.
Sorry if my drone resolution and line noise makes me missing something, otherwise I would say as @Hans van Zijst, yeah just a bit clunky.
I was flying my debug drone over Hubzilla Cybercity UI some more, eventually shot some bugs
Adressing PG results in lock icon with alt-text Private message. It is nothing channel-related, it is something like Group Direct Message. What matters: Do people know to whom it is addressed? If they are just on BCC, the actual group (or access list) should be Undisclosed recipients.
As it is not a channel message (to channel contacts) it should be a Group DM (with DM icon) now it is something in between: kind of App message, with the App being Privacy Groups, with the icon of lock.
The app has the same icon as Connections, so showing the message with its app icon would be mistaken with posting to channel connections. Maybe the app icon should be having a lock on side of the silhouettes. And such icon should be next to name at the message header.
This visibility turns CC instead of BCC or does it create group/access list public with some identity like Channel? How do people know they are on this list and who sees the posts/comments? Does it create something like unvoluntary Google Group? Should this be called Circle? Can people leave/unsubscribe or block PG? Can connections comment and see others comment in both states of the switch? In state when members are not disclosed, should they see others comments? Probably not. Should not that be a Direct message then? Or Undisclosed Group Direct message (Bcc}?
What was called Private Message created with Privacy groups App is in Public and restricted messages in HQ. On forum channel, there is no message, so the Forum channel should not be allowed as recipient (Privacy group member). Maybe the switch in previous image should be formulated in opposite (members are undisclosed) default On the right side. And here it would move them from left tab (Public and public named lists) right to the DM and Undisclosed Group DM tab.
Sorry if my drone resolution and line noise makes me missing something, otherwise I would say as @Hans van Zijst, yeah just a bit clunky.
oRx-Qx pirateradio - [email protected]
@oRx-Qx pirateradio there might be some misunderstandings involved...
The privacy groups app is an app to manage privacy groups. You can create new ones, delete them and manage membership. It is not an app to create posts. The lock icon would be the better choice for this app, i agree. This will be changed in 7.0
Any channel can decide if it wants to receive content from other channels or not. This has nothing to do with the scope of a message.
The difference between a private message and a direct message is that a direct message is addressed to individual channels, while a private message is addressed to a group of channels. In hq we show private messages and public message in the same tab because having a separate tab for public messages seemed overkill. Direct messages are something more personal, hence they got a separate tab.
The privacy groups app is an app to manage privacy groups. You can create new ones, delete them and manage membership. It is not an app to create posts. The lock icon would be the better choice for this app, i agree. This will be changed in 7.0
Any channel can decide if it wants to receive content from other channels or not. This has nothing to do with the scope of a message.
The difference between a private message and a direct message is that a direct message is addressed to individual channels, while a private message is addressed to a group of channels. In hq we show private messages and public message in the same tab because having a separate tab for public messages seemed overkill. Direct messages are something more personal, hence they got a separate tab.
@Mario Vavti What I was thinking about is icon like this
Because it is not only about access, it is sbout "locked" group of contacts. If you take point of view from channel owner, you just want to limit access or whatever. But have in mind these people are humans with their needs and rights. From their point they are in some group which they cannot leave and where they do not know the others. They know just that they are receiving something in limited audience.
On other messenger services, when somebody makes group by arbitrary choice of contacts and starts messaging them, you have an option to leave. Not just block channel, because it is your relative organising a christmas party which takes a lot of messages but happens you are not interested. In Hubzilla now it is something like employer workgroup. In Google groups you can put people to group without their consent just if they are from your organisation, others receive invitation.
If there is an option to leave, enter, address all others, it is just an overlapping functionality with channels (Social restricted or Forum restricted / newly would be Group restricted). If the PG is really undisclosed, they should receive DM, not a post. Precisely, Undisclosed group DM, because they know, they are in some group, but cannot post to others, just reply to sender, because they they should not be receiving recipient list.
So the Privacy Groups App is best in just making Undisclosed groups. That is something what is made any time when somebody picks arbitrary recipients from channel contacts (and should take the "locked group" icon in such case), so moreover core functionality, App is just to name them for the owner.
Because it is not only about access, it is sbout "locked" group of contacts. If you take point of view from channel owner, you just want to limit access or whatever. But have in mind these people are humans with their needs and rights. From their point they are in some group which they cannot leave and where they do not know the others. They know just that they are receiving something in limited audience.
On other messenger services, when somebody makes group by arbitrary choice of contacts and starts messaging them, you have an option to leave. Not just block channel, because it is your relative organising a christmas party which takes a lot of messages but happens you are not interested. In Hubzilla now it is something like employer workgroup. In Google groups you can put people to group without their consent just if they are from your organisation, others receive invitation.
If there is an option to leave, enter, address all others, it is just an overlapping functionality with channels (Social restricted or Forum restricted / newly would be Group restricted). If the PG is really undisclosed, they should receive DM, not a post. Precisely, Undisclosed group DM, because they know, they are in some group, but cannot post to others, just reply to sender, because they they should not be receiving recipient list.
So the Privacy Groups App is best in just making Undisclosed groups. That is something what is made any time when somebody picks arbitrary recipients from channel contacts (and should take the "locked group" icon in such case), so moreover core functionality, App is just to name them for the owner.
oRx-Qx pirateradio - [email protected]
Privacy Groups are only "undisclosed" because the Hubzilla implementation wasn't finished. In Zap and other derivative projects, the button to disclose members actually works and other list members can often see who was included; although disclosure isn't required and privacy is the default behaviour.
Once again, these are personal mailing lists. Nothing more. Personal means they belong to you and you can control who is in them and you control their privacy and access restrictions. In this software, you control the things you own. You have no control over something that somebody else owns.
Once again, these are personal mailing lists. Nothing more. Personal means they belong to you and you can control who is in them and you control their privacy and access restrictions. In this software, you control the things you own. You have no control over something that somebody else owns.
@Mario Vavti
Privacy groups are none of your contacts business.
@mike
Personal means they belong to you and you can control who is in them
Well depends if we want 1990's ethos software or 2020's legal and social ethos software. We in Europe have GDPR legislation and it says you cannot process somebody's personal information (like email address) without clearly asked and voluntarily given consent. Corporations are sued and fined billions for making user email lists without consent and using them for other purpose. Following some channel does not give any consent for being added on any secret mailinglists. Mailinglists have to provide unsubscribe link in every message. Digital public space standards shifted and i wrote examples what are contemporary standard procedures regarding messaging people.
And if those privacy groups are personal address lists and recipients can reply just to sender they should receive DM. I do not know how to explain somebody what is a difference between a message with envelope and message with lock (or key). All I can say that they are basically the same but lock counterintuitively to the icon meaning that more people are receiving that message. If they pick one recipient it will be envelope and if they pick two or more it will be lock. So I try another icon.
Privacy groups are none of your contacts business.
@mike
Personal means they belong to you and you can control who is in them
Well depends if we want 1990's ethos software or 2020's legal and social ethos software. We in Europe have GDPR legislation and it says you cannot process somebody's personal information (like email address) without clearly asked and voluntarily given consent. Corporations are sued and fined billions for making user email lists without consent and using them for other purpose. Following some channel does not give any consent for being added on any secret mailinglists. Mailinglists have to provide unsubscribe link in every message. Digital public space standards shifted and i wrote examples what are contemporary standard procedures regarding messaging people.
And if those privacy groups are personal address lists and recipients can reply just to sender they should receive DM. I do not know how to explain somebody what is a difference between a message with envelope and message with lock (or key). All I can say that they are basically the same but lock counterintuitively to the icon meaning that more people are receiving that message. If they pick one recipient it will be envelope and if they pick two or more it will be lock. So I try another icon.
oRx-Qx pirateradio - [email protected]
@oRx-Qx pirateradio you basically consent by approving a connection request. If you want to revoke the consent, you can delete the connection and be done with it.
@oRx-Qx pirateradio it is a bit harder than this. An email address is not always personally identifiable information. It depends on who is processing the information: would that person/company be able to trace this email address back to a natural person without to much effort? (Browsing to anonymized data usually constitute to much effort.) To be fair: email usually is PII.
For instance: a licence plate is not PII. Unless you work at an insurance company and you can easily trace that plate back to the owner of the car. For that organization it is PII and they need to treat it as such.
In case of a message/post in Hubzilla chances are that you are not sharing any personally identifiable information at all. And it would be easy to put this in the user agreement upon signing up on a hub. If you then connect to another hub that would be your choice...
And to be real: these laws are not meant to protect the general public at all. They are meant to protect the mega corporations who can spend millions on an entire "privacy framework" and loads of "legitimate interests" bull. Smaller companies and the foss community is hit much harder, even though they do not aggregate data on the idiotic scale of Google/MS/Amazon/etc. at all. Trust me: these laws where lobbied for by those big companies. Does not say you should not make sure u are abiding the law, but just for some background.
For instance: a licence plate is not PII. Unless you work at an insurance company and you can easily trace that plate back to the owner of the car. For that organization it is PII and they need to treat it as such.
In case of a message/post in Hubzilla chances are that you are not sharing any personally identifiable information at all. And it would be easy to put this in the user agreement upon signing up on a hub. If you then connect to another hub that would be your choice...
And to be real: these laws are not meant to protect the general public at all. They are meant to protect the mega corporations who can spend millions on an entire "privacy framework" and loads of "legitimate interests" bull. Smaller companies and the foss community is hit much harder, even though they do not aggregate data on the idiotic scale of Google/MS/Amazon/etc. at all. Trust me: these laws where lobbied for by those big companies. Does not say you should not make sure u are abiding the law, but just for some background.
@Mark Well, personally, I do not like to live in paranoid situation, stressed if I make some mistake giving some information which can be abused. So I like to choose software, which is trustworthy, which does not have any privacy backdoors, which says clearly what is happening and which makes clear what will happen by my decisions and keeps me safe that nothing else and unexpected will happen. That is what can be called community principles. Sorry for mentioning GDPR, but I use Hubzilla also for work and people in film archive which is standard legal entity and its services have to comply to law.
And what I was trying to say, when you take an email client and i use it a lot, i receive several messages per day, really... In email in most clients you see in every message From: field, To: field. Those are very important information. Sometimes the message is for me from somebody, sometimes is bulk, sometimes is to some group. I always need to see simply from who and to whom it was sent. Sometimes this is extended by CC and Bcc fields. With CC a group is created where all recipients know each other and can reply to each other. With Bcc an undisclosed group is created, when recipients do not know others, do not know who else received that message. Also important information, because I know, when replying, I am just answering the sender and not all. Email clients basicly shows you this information in clearly readable form to inform you and you can make decisions what to do and that will happen. With mailinglist Reply to: is also used and all of this is very complex system, but just basic in comparison to contemporary social networking and messaging. I tried to show with hubzilla UI screenshots, that this is not clearly readable and predictable what kind of message I am receiving or sending and who sees when I reply. Not only by terminology used but also by icons and corresponding UI elements. That is uncomfortable feeling and extremely hard to explain to new people trying to use Hubzilla. When they do something simple but on different places in Hubzilla it has different names and undecipherable outcomes, they step back. People should know and easily see any time when they have individual privacy, when they are part of a group and which group, how they decide on group membership, how they talk to group or public. On this simple human level ethical community principles the social software UI should provide polite and aesthetic navigation. Not for the police or big-tech interests, but for joyful personal social networking. Just my opinion.
And what I was trying to say, when you take an email client and i use it a lot, i receive several messages per day, really... In email in most clients you see in every message From: field, To: field. Those are very important information. Sometimes the message is for me from somebody, sometimes is bulk, sometimes is to some group. I always need to see simply from who and to whom it was sent. Sometimes this is extended by CC and Bcc fields. With CC a group is created where all recipients know each other and can reply to each other. With Bcc an undisclosed group is created, when recipients do not know others, do not know who else received that message. Also important information, because I know, when replying, I am just answering the sender and not all. Email clients basicly shows you this information in clearly readable form to inform you and you can make decisions what to do and that will happen. With mailinglist Reply to: is also used and all of this is very complex system, but just basic in comparison to contemporary social networking and messaging. I tried to show with hubzilla UI screenshots, that this is not clearly readable and predictable what kind of message I am receiving or sending and who sees when I reply. Not only by terminology used but also by icons and corresponding UI elements. That is uncomfortable feeling and extremely hard to explain to new people trying to use Hubzilla. When they do something simple but on different places in Hubzilla it has different names and undecipherable outcomes, they step back. People should know and easily see any time when they have individual privacy, when they are part of a group and which group, how they decide on group membership, how they talk to group or public. On this simple human level ethical community principles the social software UI should provide polite and aesthetic navigation. Not for the police or big-tech interests, but for joyful personal social networking. Just my opinion.
Actually, current Privacy Groups is a plugin. It allows to make named lists of contacts. What is ineteresting this is integrated in Hubzilla core and allows setting access to these lists.
So the first question if if this is core functionality or if there can be another plugin called Circles which makes Hubzilla allow setting access to Circles side by side with Privacy Groups.
These lists are different from forums (which are set organically by activity of contacts), so renaming Forums to groups while having Privacy groups would be strange and need complex explanation what is the difference for somebody who is not used to the concept of channels (Mastodon users).
The Privacy groups are just for personal contacts organising and cannot be addressed with @... But a message can be sent to these lists via lock icon. A bit inconsistent and i think the lock should not be used for posts audience while they are sent out and it does not control access to them but addressing. Lock should be used just for the files.
I see several inconsistencies in this. If these list should be a core functionality, if they are for setting access or can be addressed also. In fact, the Privacy groups or Circles for some strange kind of private Celebrity Soapbox. So the question is if this should be cleared and integrated fully as another channel behavior.
So the first question if if this is core functionality or if there can be another plugin called Circles which makes Hubzilla allow setting access to Circles side by side with Privacy Groups.
These lists are different from forums (which are set organically by activity of contacts), so renaming Forums to groups while having Privacy groups would be strange and need complex explanation what is the difference for somebody who is not used to the concept of channels (Mastodon users).
The Privacy groups are just for personal contacts organising and cannot be addressed with @... But a message can be sent to these lists via lock icon. A bit inconsistent and i think the lock should not be used for posts audience while they are sent out and it does not control access to them but addressing. Lock should be used just for the files.
I see several inconsistencies in this. If these list should be a core functionality, if they are for setting access or can be addressed also. In fact, the Privacy groups or Circles for some strange kind of private Celebrity Soapbox. So the question is if this should be cleared and integrated fully as another channel behavior.
@oRx-Qx pirateradio
current Privacy Groups is a plugin
It is not a plugin. It is in core.
i think the lock should not be used for posts audience while they are sent out and it does not control access to them but addressing.
It does control access of the posts just like any other items with ACL. The addressing is done based on access.
current Privacy Groups is a plugin
It is not a plugin. It is in core.
i think the lock should not be used for posts audience while they are sent out and it does not control access to them but addressing.
It does control access of the posts just like any other items with ACL. The addressing is done based on access.
@oRx-Qx pirateradio
Permission groups are no "discussion groups" - You do not interact with other members directly, only with the source channel. By responding to the source channel, you chose to publish your response, so other readers of the source channel can read and quote your comment. I learned that a data flow embodying this logic is a specific thought through design of Hubzilla/Zot/Nomad - which is great (...that Zot has it - Not so great that its specific only to Zot, it should be standard...).
When you agree to the public or selected people sending you messages (which is always your choice), it is not your choice who else they adress in the same message by using sub-lists of their address book. You can leave a discussion group, but you can not leave an address book. You can, however, ask to be removed (mailing lists are required to offer that option) or block messages from its owner because he is abusing your address for spamming.
Therefore, it is wise that people from the same address book sub-list of the originating channel cannot contact you directly - only as a response to the originating channel. This is substantially different from "forums" or "group channels" which is a host of group discussion that you specifically join.
Regarding the icon, I would prefer not to lock the list members, but to hand them an access key (key symbol instead of lock). But that is fine tuning.
Permission groups are no "discussion groups" - You do not interact with other members directly, only with the source channel. By responding to the source channel, you chose to publish your response, so other readers of the source channel can read and quote your comment. I learned that a data flow embodying this logic is a specific thought through design of Hubzilla/Zot/Nomad - which is great (...that Zot has it - Not so great that its specific only to Zot, it should be standard...).
When you agree to the public or selected people sending you messages (which is always your choice), it is not your choice who else they adress in the same message by using sub-lists of their address book. You can leave a discussion group, but you can not leave an address book. You can, however, ask to be removed (mailing lists are required to offer that option) or block messages from its owner because he is abusing your address for spamming.
Therefore, it is wise that people from the same address book sub-list of the originating channel cannot contact you directly - only as a response to the originating channel. This is substantially different from "forums" or "group channels" which is a host of group discussion that you specifically join.
Regarding the icon, I would prefer not to lock the list members, but to hand them an access key (key symbol instead of lock). But that is fine tuning.
Permission groups are no "discussion groups" - You do not interact with other members directly
and
In fact, i think, you are just mixing up the functionality of a forum channel (called group in other fedi projects) and privacy groups.
@[email protected] @[email protected] Is this kind of background knowledge written down somewhere "officially", ideally in a readme in git for example? It would be very useful to have this in the git directly. Some interested folks, users, journalists could grasp some basic technical ideas. The more "they know the less questions and the more real acknowledgment of the geniality of the technical underlying solutions the ZOT family implements - and the more evangelists we have that spread the word.
And no dev has to explain it over and over again - just a link would be enough, RTFM
and
In fact, i think, you are just mixing up the functionality of a forum channel (called group in other fedi projects) and privacy groups.
@[email protected] @[email protected] Is this kind of background knowledge written down somewhere "officially", ideally in a readme in git for example? It would be very useful to have this in the git directly. Some interested folks, users, journalists could grasp some basic technical ideas. The more "they know the less questions and the more real acknowledgment of the geniality of the technical underlying solutions the ZOT family implements - and the more evangelists we have that spread the word.
And no dev has to explain it over and over again - just a link would be enough, RTFM
@oRx-Qx pirateradio
It seems you are mixing up different concepts...
In terms of email (analogy): You are criticizing that an email program allows to add more than one contact in the " To:" field. I would not be aware that this is forbidden by new GDPR, otherwise Thunderbird would be illegal because it is too 1990ies for today's legislation...
So several people who are addressed (independently of
the mechanism), may feel like a group. If I publish a website, the people who ate enclosed, are the group "world population", and they cannot opt out when they answer in a content field (which is an opt in). In Hubzilla posts, they have to opt in (by accepting the public stream or accepting a connection) in the first place.
But all this has nothing to do with how the author enters the multiple addressees on the " To:" field - either one by one, or with an internal list to simplify organization of that workflow. This lost being nothing but an internal tag to select a category of connections in one step based on personal organization.
It seems you are mixing up different concepts...
In terms of email (analogy): You are criticizing that an email program allows to add more than one contact in the " To:" field. I would not be aware that this is forbidden by new GDPR, otherwise Thunderbird would be illegal because it is too 1990ies for today's legislation...
So several people who are addressed (independently of
the mechanism), may feel like a group. If I publish a website, the people who ate enclosed, are the group "world population", and they cannot opt out when they answer in a content field (which is an opt in). In Hubzilla posts, they have to opt in (by accepting the public stream or accepting a connection) in the first place.
But all this has nothing to do with how the author enters the multiple addressees on the " To:" field - either one by one, or with an internal list to simplify organization of that workflow. This lost being nothing but an internal tag to select a category of connections in one step based on personal organization.
Channels are OK, channels have the needed consent mechanisms. But the consent for be a channel member/follower cannot be used for something else. PG is something else, without these mechanisms if it was a group. That is the kind of duplicate functionality with restricted channels, where it is implemented better. And if the PG is just list of more recipients, i am totally OK with that. But then it should mean DM is used and presented in UI.
So i think we already know what is meant, hopefully things get clear for anybody trying Hz.
So i think we already know what is meant, hopefully things get clear for anybody trying Hz.