Mastodawn

Evan Prodromou

So, I'm a strong yes.

Every ActivityPub post has a `replies` collection that contains all the replies to the post. The definitive version lives on the original poster's server.

The OP should be able to either approve replies before they're added to this collection, or remove them from the collection if they're added automatically.

The UI for ActivityPub apps should use this `replies` collection when showing the replies to a post. (Many of them currently just search for replies locally.)

If someone replies to a post, and the reply isn't added to the `replies` collection, it's still visible in the replier's feeds, to their followers, etc. It just doesn't appear in the UI for the original post.

I think this strikes a fair balance between freedom of speech and freedom of reach. Anyone has a right to reply to any post, but they don't have a right to a spot on that post's replies page.

There was a lot of concern in the thread on this poll about the moral hazard here. People could post misinformation without being challenged directly in the thread. That's a problem, but it's one that moderators can deal with. And it works both ways; someone posting a lot of baloney doesn't have a right to a spot in my replies.

william.maggos Jun 20, 2024

a better compromise imo would be to let people rank all replies ala lemmy/kbin. all replies on fedi should be treated this way, not boostable or able to be favorited. it would give us a version of X's Community Notes and much more. basically merge Mastodon and those projects etc. hashtags instead of communities/magazines.

@wjmaggos I think that `Like`/`Dislike` counts are great, but ultimately OP should get to hide replies.

💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱Jun 20, 2024

@wjmaggos @evan
I can tell you as a Maths teacher I've seen people on Lemmy downvote factually correct posts and upvote misinformation (i.e. they use it as a "I agree/disagree with this" without considering if they themselves are wrong), so you need some integrity around who's doing the voting for that to work.

william.maggos Jun 20, 2024

@SmartmanApps @evan

I trust the crowd (with good moderation that filters for assholes) over an OP with a large cult following who doesn't want to allow criticism to be posted. That can get unhealthy quick. The crowd here is very left so people assume that will all work out fine, but we can be just as blind in our unwillingness to accept inconvenient facts/criticism. People who don't want anybody to see criticism of Biden in the next few months will abuse this, for sure.

💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱Jun 20, 2024

@wjmaggos @evan
"we can be just as blind in our unwillingness to accept inconvenient facts"
Yep, that's what I'm saying. I have posted actual Maths textbook and historical references and been downvoted! I've even been downvoted when I posted Mathematical proofs! I had someone say "I don't find it convincing". If you don't understand a proof then there's nothing I can say to you. I find it incredible the lengths people will go to to hang onto their false beliefs.

william.maggos Jun 20, 2024

@SmartmanApps @evan

the question here is whether if your reply could get deleted by the person you replied to. I don't think they should be able to do that. yes, your reply could get down voted for shitty reasons. I think that's better than having it disappear or having it just be one of many other replies, not ranked at all. cause most of the time, the best replies (often representing different perspectives) will get voted to the top and seen the most.

💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱Jun 20, 2024

@wjmaggos @evan
"best replies (often representing different perspectives) will get voted to the top and seen the most"
Yes, I'm agreeing that's what SHOULD happen, but am just pointing out I have often seen the complete opposite too. Someone posts misinformation, people who agree with it upvote it, I post fact-checks and get downvoted. Same applies to deleting replies - factual person can delete misinfo replies, but misinfo person can delete factual replies too.

Max Lee Jun 21, 2024

@evan Is there a reason moderators wouldn't also be able to solve the reply issues? That would move it a bit away from "User deleted critical replies to own posts" towards "Moderators on an instance with some integrity decided it was violating their rules" (And on a single-user instance the moderator would be the poster anyways, but then such an instance would have less trustworthiness in that regard)

Matt Lehrer Jun 20, 2024

@evan this is a pretty compelling combination of fairness, respect to everyone involved, and relative ease of implementation. Seems rare!

Tim Jun 20, 2024

@evan I agree. And my answer would have been different had I known this.

John Spurlock Jun 20, 2024

@evan completely agree, only thing that gets tricky is how to deal with a _grandchild_ reply that you want to remove without removing that _child_ and the other grandchildren.

let's say B replies to A, and C replies to B (let's say all separate servers) - the only way for A to remove a C is to remove B, being the only replies collection it controls.

only solution I see is materializing the entire tree in A's replies collection (using AP's rich object model) which most implementations don't do

@js there's work going on in a FEP about the conversation tree. Long story short, the OP can manage the conversation tree that's rooted in their original post.

John Spurlock Jun 20, 2024

@evan this one? https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/5624/fep-5624.md

fep/fep/5624/fep-5624.md at main

fep - Fediverse Enhancement Proposals

Codeberg.org

@js no, not that one.

Luc Jun 21, 2024

@evan I agree with your analysis, my ideal system is afaict identical: I choose my version of events (replies to my post) and anyone else is free to choose theirs (it can link back to what it's a reply to). Interesting that, to me, this is qualified no whereas you said strong yes. I voted before reading replies and my reasoning is/was that it's not removing: I shouldn't have the power to silence other people when I'm not a server moderator, but unlinking: sure. My reading != me understanding xD

Jeremy Kahn Jun 20, 2024

Federating the _list_ of replies from the poster's instance isn't currently done, is it?

Doing that would address (maybe?) one of the (least toxic) causes of the reply-guy phenomenon — that small instances often don't have a complete cache of all the replies to a post on another instance

https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/#dfn-replies

@trochee

Yes, the `replies` property is a standard property.

Activity Vocabulary

Jeremy Kahn Jun 20, 2024

From the horse's mouth!

So, (1) servers respecting `replies` in display, would help with the "I can't see others' replies"?

Jeremy Kahn Jun 20, 2024

And (2) an ability to remove entries from the `replies` property, combined with (1), would approach what kissane was suggesting?

@trochee I didn't read @kissane 's posts that carefully. What do you think? Does it meet her needs?

Richard MacManus Jun 20, 2024

@evan I like this, as it's like blogging in the good old days. We always reserved the right to remove comments to a post if they were offensive or even just irrelevant to the post. So Mastodon (and fediverse) should have the same capability re replies. Only it's even better now, since (as you point out) the person who replied still has a copy on their server.

Steve Dinn 🇨🇦Jun 20, 2024

@evan I was only a "qualified yes" because I didn't fully understand how the mechanism worked behind the scenes. I would like to amend my vote to a "strong yes".