Mastodon's Mastodon'ts.

There are a few fundamentally broken things about how Mastodon posts work that are terrible vectors for abuse, as well as being bad for basic usability. Maybe they are fixable, I don't know. To be clear: I am a fan of Mastodon....
https://jwz.org/b/ykC_

Mastodon's Mastodon'ts

There are a few fundamentally broken things about how Mastodon posts work that are terrible vectors for abuse, as well as being bad for basic usability. Maybe they are fixable, I don't know. To be clear: I am a fan of Mastodon. I have been enjoying my time there much more than I ever enjoyed Twitter or Facebook or Instagram. And I am 100% in the "I won't touch anything Jack Dorsey has ...

@jwz "I own the replies to my post" is very important. A lot of grief on the Internet happened because people didn't know they could (and should) delete jerks from their own posts (regardless of platform), rather than give up on comments ever being useful.

@isagalaev @jwz
Holy shit it is so nice to hear people say this aloud. I've been quietly over here in my corner thinking about launching my own entire rant to this point wondering if I was the only person who got this.

I find Mastodon's complete failure to grasp/implement this principle both maddening and incredibly ironic. This has been, until quite recently, the number one problem with Twitter (and similar systems like G+), and what caused it to be such an utter shit show. Mastodon's failure to allow users to own their comments and provide them with moderator tools reconstitutes exactly the toxic dynamics of Twitter. Mastodon has tried to compensate for this with a model that has the people running instances functioning as moderators, which is a "solution" of such terrible long-term consequences as to be indistinguishable from active sabotage of the Fediverse.

@siderea @isagalaev @jwz Yeah. While i personally think that "deleting other people's posts" might be a bridge too far, at the VERY least you should be able to SEVER THE REPLY-TO RELATIONSHIP of any post you don't want in your thread. People can say shitty things if they want, but you shouldn't have to automatically boost the reach of that just because it's a reply to something you said.

@adrienne @siderea @jwz "i personally think that "deleting other people's posts" might be a bridge too far — this is exactly the problem I was talking about. Too many people adopted this… reverential approach to something someone else wrote, which just shouldn't exist.

As jwz mentioned in the article a person coming to *your* comments effectively uses your platform, of which you should stay in control. If they want to be in control they should write their own post, mentioning yours. (cont…)

@isagalaev @siderea @jwz Yes, i agree, but someone replying to your post kind of IS "writing their own post, mentioning yours". It still lives on their server! It's just that "mentioning" creates a relationship (reply-to). Being able to sever this relationship at will would allow people to maintain their own content which they did, after all, post on their own fucking server -- but removes it from association with your content.

(FYI, i'm on the mod team of a fairly popular Fediverse server which is extremely full of queer & marginalized people; i'm not stupid, i'm not inexperienced, and i am certainly not "reverential" about shit other people write.)

@adrienne

> but someone replying to your post kind of IS "writing their own post, mentioning yours".

That's the problem: it is, but it shouldn't be.

This isn't just a technological problem, it's a cultural one.

The Blogosphere has a very different culture than Twitter does. It has very clear boundaries that Twitter and many other "social media" platforms don't share. On the Blogosphere, whether or not you have jurisdiction over something you write depends on where you write it. If you didn't want to give somebody else authority to delete it you shouldn't have written it as a comment on their blog. You have your own blog where you have the authority and nobody else can delete what you write.

Mastodon is implemented like Twitter, where there is no distinction between different people's spaces, such that it makes sense to conceptualize a comment a user leaves on another's post as "theirs". After all, all of the comments each of us writes appear on our comments tab.

@isagalaev @jwz

@siderea @adrienne @isagalaev @jwz It can be made into a technological one. I've been working out how you'd do a real decentralized (no coinbro shit) version of the fediverse, and "replies don't show up unless they're accompanied by proof of authorization to reply" is an ingredient. Authorization would normally be by assigned proxy authority (something like "well moderated instance or known friend automatically gets authorized but revokable).

@dalias

Oof. I appreciate this line of thinking, but please make sure that you understand how flexibly the blogosphere handles what are basically ACLs because I think that diversity of options is important. One of the things that's kind of awful about the Twitter model that Mastodon has inherited is it's one size fits all.

Off the top of my head, users might choose to default allow comments from:
1) manual list of authorized commenters
2) users on own instance
3) users on known good instances
4) users they follow
5) users that follow them
6) users that are followed by someone they follow (FOAF)
7) users that follow someone they follow (fellow fans - I don't know I've ever seen this implemented)
8) users on any instance
9) anons? (If that is even possible)

@adrienne @isagalaev @jwz

@siderea @adrienne @isagalaev @jwz Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Ultimately the proof would be thru a program signed by you to evaluate authorization, which could use any of those criteria. Proof of authorization is an input (involving other signatures & notarizations) that your program accepts.