Please, if you have a bot, make it post in unlisted rather than in public. There is so many bots posting in public now that the federated timeline is becoming unusable.
I don’t usually ask that, but can you boost this to spread awareness?
@Sylvhem Just to be sure, as my mind reads it with an unsure tone.
And also sorry for the inconvenience.
@Jakobiner This brings up a number of additional questions and issues.
I default all my toots to "unlisted" (a partial compromise to my CW aversion). Scope may be individually toggled broader or narrower.
Hashtags aren't searchable unless toots are public. I find this a misfeature, but will toggle scope to global when including hashtags meant to be searched.
People will occasionally toot personal matters followers-only. Given my followers list all but certainly doesn't match theirs, any reply other than a DM strikes me as ill-advised. (Stepping in on such discusions should usually be with extreme sensitivity regardless.)
Thread scopes generally should be no broader than the parent or any subsequent upstream toot. Note that the "public" vs. "unlisted" distinction isn't one of scope, strictly, but of amplification. And searchability.
"Followers only" especially seems ill-advised. Unless a profile is locked, this is not directly controlled by author, different users' scopes effectively never intersect, and determining just what scope is is effectively impossible.
The design and consequences strike me as a bit of a mess.
And as noted earlier, the Federated stream usually has limited utility.
@Jakobiner On scope; A response to a followers-only post should inherit the original author's followers specification, Not your own, as its widest possible scope.
A DM would be acceptable but not required.
From the perspective of respondants to Followers Only threads, the scope should not be their own followers.
The problem with FO as it now stands, to my understanding, is that any discussion becomes fragmented through the intersection of dissimmilar followers scopes of respondents. To the extent profiles are named, content quoted, or context leaked, the intent of the original author is not respected.
@dredmorbius @Jakobiner I think that there is also a problem with discussion threads presentation in most of Mastodon clients. They present every post rather like only one atomic message, with some option to show original content which is replied, rather than list of whole threads. And now it seems that user should maintain this by setting unlisted / FO setting for readable federated timeline etc.
@Sylvhem I have myself a bot and declared as such (in account parameters) : by default, all posts are unlisted. I was considering this as a feature of Mastodon but after all it's probably played at the instance level 🤔
@Sylvhem Agreed. This would solve a problem that I currently solve by muting the overwhelming majority of bots. I don't want to have to do that but they just flood the timeline.
@Sylvhem I doubt any number of bots turning their posts to unlisted will make the federated timeline actually usable, but I've double checked all of my bots and two of them weren't posting unlisted before, which is now fixed.
@Sylvhem Also consider reporting such bots suggesting they be silenced by the local mod (effectively making all that bots public posts unlisted on the local instance),
@Sylvhem Two questions about my bot on botsin.space (@dicewarebot).
1) Does being on botsin.space mitigate this issue at all (or somewhat)
2) How does one post to unlisted? (Especially if the botsinspace instance doesn't mitigate this issue.
Une instance se voulant accueillante pour les personnes queers, féministes et anarchistes ainsi que pour leurs sympathisant·e·s. Nous sommes principalement francophones, mais vous êtes les bienvenu·e·s quelle que soit votre langue.
A welcoming instance for queer, feminist and anarchist people as well as their sympathizers. We are mainly French-speaking people, but you are welcome whatever your language might be.