New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Option to disable auto-acceptance of follows (manual acceptance) #1179

Open
techknowlogick opened this Issue Oct 3, 2018 · 72 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
@techknowlogick

techknowlogick commented Oct 3, 2018

Currently PeerTube auto-accepts all follow requests, this is a feature request to allow disabling of the auto-acceptance and allow an admin to manually accept specific follow requests (and ignore, or reject others)

@Chocobozzz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Chocobozzz

Chocobozzz Oct 3, 2018

Owner

Why would you want to refuse a follow?

EDIT: that wasn't meant to oppose the issue, but rather define the scope of the issue. "Why might you want to refuse a follow" would have been a better formulation. See #1179 (comment) for a proper follow-up.

Owner

Chocobozzz commented Oct 3, 2018

Why would you want to refuse a follow?

EDIT: that wasn't meant to oppose the issue, but rather define the scope of the issue. "Why might you want to refuse a follow" would have been a better formulation. See #1179 (comment) for a proper follow-up.

@techknowlogick

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@techknowlogick

techknowlogick Oct 3, 2018

I'd prefer that my content doesn't syndicate to an instance called "bootlickers"

techknowlogick commented Oct 3, 2018

I'd prefer that my content doesn't syndicate to an instance called "bootlickers"

@rigelk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rigelk

rigelk Oct 3, 2018

Collaborator

@techknowlogick please understand we are looking for a general case argument

Collaborator

rigelk commented Oct 3, 2018

@techknowlogick please understand we are looking for a general case argument

@inmysocks

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@inmysocks

inmysocks Oct 3, 2018

How is not wanting to syndicate with certain instances not a general case?

inmysocks commented Oct 3, 2018

How is not wanting to syndicate with certain instances not a general case?

@techknowlogick

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@techknowlogick

techknowlogick Oct 3, 2018

general case argument: someone could register a domain that is a slur (take your pick of whichever one you want) then syndicate my content there. It could give them impression that because my content is on that domain that I endorse it. Or just fill up the follows with a list of slurs that I have to see everytime I look at the follows. I know this isn't mastodon, but masto has the idea of "locked accounts" where followers need to be approved, this is almost the same.

techknowlogick commented Oct 3, 2018

general case argument: someone could register a domain that is a slur (take your pick of whichever one you want) then syndicate my content there. It could give them impression that because my content is on that domain that I endorse it. Or just fill up the follows with a list of slurs that I have to see everytime I look at the follows. I know this isn't mastodon, but masto has the idea of "locked accounts" where followers need to be approved, this is almost the same.

@gordonzola

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gordonzola

gordonzola Oct 3, 2018

I think that giving the choice to instance admins to not accept automatically federating instances is a heavy requirement in order to mitigate harrassment: for the same reason that private account does exist on Mastodon, or even on the birdsite, users (in this case, admins, because only them control the federation behaviour) may want to control how their content is propagated.

Here is a concrete example, I sincerely hope that you (=Peertube maintainers) will understand it: I’m running an instance for queer people, people who are targeted by harrassment on a daily basis on every social platform/network. Some 4chan trolls (but of course you can guess the type of communities i’m talking about here) make accounts on “freedom of speech” instances (AKA without any form of moderation), accounts that i can’t control, obviously. Those instances are following mine, so they receive automatically public videos published on my instance. Then, the trolls automatically receive content that they can harrass. Not enabling auto-accept for follow requests would make this a little bit harder. The difference can be huge. If you can’t by any mean control the automatic diffusion of your content, how exactly did we evolve since the horrible idea that all data had to flow worldwide without any kind of privacy?

gordonzola commented Oct 3, 2018

I think that giving the choice to instance admins to not accept automatically federating instances is a heavy requirement in order to mitigate harrassment: for the same reason that private account does exist on Mastodon, or even on the birdsite, users (in this case, admins, because only them control the federation behaviour) may want to control how their content is propagated.

Here is a concrete example, I sincerely hope that you (=Peertube maintainers) will understand it: I’m running an instance for queer people, people who are targeted by harrassment on a daily basis on every social platform/network. Some 4chan trolls (but of course you can guess the type of communities i’m talking about here) make accounts on “freedom of speech” instances (AKA without any form of moderation), accounts that i can’t control, obviously. Those instances are following mine, so they receive automatically public videos published on my instance. Then, the trolls automatically receive content that they can harrass. Not enabling auto-accept for follow requests would make this a little bit harder. The difference can be huge. If you can’t by any mean control the automatic diffusion of your content, how exactly did we evolve since the horrible idea that all data had to flow worldwide without any kind of privacy?

@seanlynch

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@seanlynch

seanlynch Oct 3, 2018

I use a locked account on Mastodon so that I can control where my content shows up in the Fediverse. It's by no means a perfect solution, but there's a big difference between someone having to go out of their way to look at my toots and having my own instance automatically send all my toots to them. The inability to control follows is a dealbreaker for me.

seanlynch commented Oct 3, 2018

I use a locked account on Mastodon so that I can control where my content shows up in the Fediverse. It's by no means a perfect solution, but there's a big difference between someone having to go out of their way to look at my toots and having my own instance automatically send all my toots to them. The inability to control follows is a dealbreaker for me.

@witcheslive

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@witcheslive

witcheslive Oct 3, 2018

Honestly kind of worry about the safety of this platform if the kneejerk response from the devs is "why would you want to control who follows you"

How is it possible that you're working on a youtube alternative and are completely unaware of how the total lack of control over publishing your content and letting any, say, alt-right yahoo and their hangers-on spike engagement in ways that are detrimental to your channel and community around it causes MASSIVE issues? A follow, like anything else, can be done in bad faith. If you honestly don't understand this you really need to get some marginalized people on board with this project who have been the target of online abuse onboard to help you get perspective on these things.

witcheslive commented Oct 3, 2018

Honestly kind of worry about the safety of this platform if the kneejerk response from the devs is "why would you want to control who follows you"

How is it possible that you're working on a youtube alternative and are completely unaware of how the total lack of control over publishing your content and letting any, say, alt-right yahoo and their hangers-on spike engagement in ways that are detrimental to your channel and community around it causes MASSIVE issues? A follow, like anything else, can be done in bad faith. If you honestly don't understand this you really need to get some marginalized people on board with this project who have been the target of online abuse onboard to help you get perspective on these things.

@sydneyfalk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sydneyfalk

sydneyfalk Oct 3, 2018

Not to answer that question with a question adversarially, but: Why shouldn't your users have the ability to do this?

It hurts nothing except harassers and trolls. It helps legitimate, good-faith users, and is immensely useful for some of them.

It also helps suggest that the platform is 'unwelcoming' to harassers and trolls, which would be a good thing, because if Peertube gets infested with harassers and trolls just like YouTube, people will stick to YouTube, because ad money.

@techknowlogick please understand we are looking for a general case argument

Generally speaking, there's a lot of instances with objectionable names in one way or another, and a lot of "we don't moderate" instances.

I think that the 'bootlickers' item was an example meant to refer to the problem, not the person specifically saying they needed it because of that one instance.

sydneyfalk commented Oct 3, 2018

Not to answer that question with a question adversarially, but: Why shouldn't your users have the ability to do this?

It hurts nothing except harassers and trolls. It helps legitimate, good-faith users, and is immensely useful for some of them.

It also helps suggest that the platform is 'unwelcoming' to harassers and trolls, which would be a good thing, because if Peertube gets infested with harassers and trolls just like YouTube, people will stick to YouTube, because ad money.

@techknowlogick please understand we are looking for a general case argument

Generally speaking, there's a lot of instances with objectionable names in one way or another, and a lot of "we don't moderate" instances.

I think that the 'bootlickers' item was an example meant to refer to the problem, not the person specifically saying they needed it because of that one instance.

@joyeusenoelle

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@joyeusenoelle

joyeusenoelle Oct 3, 2018

I quote from the FAQ:

We want to stay neutral by limiting the influence of our platform on authors as much as possible.

Sometimes limiting the influence of your platform means giving the user more choices. By not including a way to vet followers, you're saying "you must allow people you know to be harassers to subscribe to your PeerTube feed", and you're make the content dynamic more hostile. That isn't a neutral decision; it's a decision in favor of harassment.

joyeusenoelle commented Oct 3, 2018

I quote from the FAQ:

We want to stay neutral by limiting the influence of our platform on authors as much as possible.

Sometimes limiting the influence of your platform means giving the user more choices. By not including a way to vet followers, you're saying "you must allow people you know to be harassers to subscribe to your PeerTube feed", and you're make the content dynamic more hostile. That isn't a neutral decision; it's a decision in favor of harassment.

@DeadSuperHero

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DeadSuperHero

DeadSuperHero Oct 3, 2018

To be clear, it's important to distinguish whether this is talking about "instances following other instances", where multiple PeerTube instances follow each other through a form in the admin panel, and "users following channels", where anyone from the fediverse can follow a particular channel.

Server-to-Server Follow Curation
So, one particularly strong use-case for this would involve more robust curation around which instances your own instance federates with directly.

Being able to check follow requests from other instances and decide which instances to connect with gives instance admins some notion of control, and would allow them to avoid connecting to problematic instances known to host trolls and serial harassers.

Actor-to-Actor Follow Curation
At the very least, channels could have some kind of privacy mode similar to Mastodon accounts, where an account is essentially private and the person running it grants who to share their content with. Not everyone is going to opt into setting up their channels this way, but this is a use-case that already works somewhat well on platforms such as Mastodon.

DeadSuperHero commented Oct 3, 2018

To be clear, it's important to distinguish whether this is talking about "instances following other instances", where multiple PeerTube instances follow each other through a form in the admin panel, and "users following channels", where anyone from the fediverse can follow a particular channel.

Server-to-Server Follow Curation
So, one particularly strong use-case for this would involve more robust curation around which instances your own instance federates with directly.

Being able to check follow requests from other instances and decide which instances to connect with gives instance admins some notion of control, and would allow them to avoid connecting to problematic instances known to host trolls and serial harassers.

Actor-to-Actor Follow Curation
At the very least, channels could have some kind of privacy mode similar to Mastodon accounts, where an account is essentially private and the person running it grants who to share their content with. Not everyone is going to opt into setting up their channels this way, but this is a use-case that already works somewhat well on platforms such as Mastodon.

@sydneyfalk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sydneyfalk

sydneyfalk Oct 3, 2018

That isn't a neutral decision; it's a decision in favor of harassment.

This is arguably true. With the "my house" analogy, I ask, to demonstrate how the initial response sounded: "Why would you want a lock on your door? Then people couldn't come in."

Well, yeah, and sometimes people need that. Hence.

sydneyfalk commented Oct 3, 2018

That isn't a neutral decision; it's a decision in favor of harassment.

This is arguably true. With the "my house" analogy, I ask, to demonstrate how the initial response sounded: "Why would you want a lock on your door? Then people couldn't come in."

Well, yeah, and sometimes people need that. Hence.

@paintedsky

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@paintedsky

paintedsky Oct 3, 2018

It is my kind and sincere hope that the admins listen to the folks here and what they are saying.

Privacy and anti-harassment tools are one of the unique features of Mastodon which, imo, have significantly lead to its popularity and adoption.

Choosing NOT to focus on privacy and anti-harassment features for this platform will, I feel, unnecessarily hinder it and kill adoption rates.

The world needs a distributed, federated video sharing platform and PeerTube can be that platform. But the world is bigger than "free speech activists" and most of the rest of us want nothing to do with them.

Making features that allow us to avoid harassing behaviour is beneficial for everyone (except trolls obviously) in the long run.

paintedsky commented Oct 3, 2018

It is my kind and sincere hope that the admins listen to the folks here and what they are saying.

Privacy and anti-harassment tools are one of the unique features of Mastodon which, imo, have significantly lead to its popularity and adoption.

Choosing NOT to focus on privacy and anti-harassment features for this platform will, I feel, unnecessarily hinder it and kill adoption rates.

The world needs a distributed, federated video sharing platform and PeerTube can be that platform. But the world is bigger than "free speech activists" and most of the rest of us want nothing to do with them.

Making features that allow us to avoid harassing behaviour is beneficial for everyone (except trolls obviously) in the long run.

@sydneyfalk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sydneyfalk

sydneyfalk Oct 3, 2018

The world needs a distributed, federated video sharing platform and PeerTube can be that platform. But the world is bigger than "free speech activists" and most of the rest of us want nothing to do with them.

Even if we all assume somehow that "free speech activists" (ha ha) are acting in good faith (many aren't, unfortunately), the paradox of tolerance is still a pitfall. If you let people who wish to exterminate others, eradicate constructive speech, etc. follow everybody else, then the burden is put on the people being harassed to 'push them out of their house'.

A lock on the door would be a much better solution than dealing with home invasion after home invasion, logically speaking.

(And, in fact, I suspect that even if this functionality's not implemented, people would implement around the lack of it eventually -- if they write a tool that auto-blocks any followers, keeps track of them, and shows them to the user to unblock and send a "you can follow me now" message. But most users can't do that kind of thing, and if the users who need to have at least deterrent-level security can't, they just won't use the platform at all.)

sydneyfalk commented Oct 3, 2018

The world needs a distributed, federated video sharing platform and PeerTube can be that platform. But the world is bigger than "free speech activists" and most of the rest of us want nothing to do with them.

Even if we all assume somehow that "free speech activists" (ha ha) are acting in good faith (many aren't, unfortunately), the paradox of tolerance is still a pitfall. If you let people who wish to exterminate others, eradicate constructive speech, etc. follow everybody else, then the burden is put on the people being harassed to 'push them out of their house'.

A lock on the door would be a much better solution than dealing with home invasion after home invasion, logically speaking.

(And, in fact, I suspect that even if this functionality's not implemented, people would implement around the lack of it eventually -- if they write a tool that auto-blocks any followers, keeps track of them, and shows them to the user to unblock and send a "you can follow me now" message. But most users can't do that kind of thing, and if the users who need to have at least deterrent-level security can't, they just won't use the platform at all.)

@Hache-Games

This comment was marked as off-topic.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Hache-Games

Hache-Games Oct 3, 2018

"Why would you want to refuse a follow?"

The fact that you even asked this question demonstrates why, months ago, people raised concern about this project's approach to design with zero consideration of how it may be used for harassment.

It is precisely why folks recommended you bring on someone with anti-harassment experience.

It reinforces the fear folks had that this team would not take seriously the input of those who have experienced harassment.

Please listen to the feedback gathered here: consider that it only represents a small portion of those who take issue with this feature, as it only represents those who have or are willing to make a GitHub account to comment.

Hache-Games commented Oct 3, 2018

"Why would you want to refuse a follow?"

The fact that you even asked this question demonstrates why, months ago, people raised concern about this project's approach to design with zero consideration of how it may be used for harassment.

It is precisely why folks recommended you bring on someone with anti-harassment experience.

It reinforces the fear folks had that this team would not take seriously the input of those who have experienced harassment.

Please listen to the feedback gathered here: consider that it only represents a small portion of those who take issue with this feature, as it only represents those who have or are willing to make a GitHub account to comment.

@8spinach

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@8spinach

8spinach Oct 3, 2018

personally i like to have control not only over who follows me, but also over who gets to see each post. being able to lock down completely and decide at any time which of the people in my network i share anything with is bar minimum in any media platform i’ll consider using. that’s not even just about harassment, i really just want certain things to only be seen by a few people. automatic approval of follows precludes that.

8spinach commented Oct 3, 2018

personally i like to have control not only over who follows me, but also over who gets to see each post. being able to lock down completely and decide at any time which of the people in my network i share anything with is bar minimum in any media platform i’ll consider using. that’s not even just about harassment, i really just want certain things to only be seen by a few people. automatic approval of follows precludes that.

@XenonFiber

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@XenonFiber

XenonFiber Oct 3, 2018

PeerTube is only as good as it's safety and anti-harassment features. Period.

It doesn't matter how good the software is, or how much better than YouTube it is, if only abusers can use it. Your userbase will be completely full of the same shitty people who made YT completely unusable for anything other than a free video dump because there's no barriers stopping them from kicking off everyone else off it.

Building a social platform means understanding why YT and other community sites have failed.

XenonFiber commented Oct 3, 2018

PeerTube is only as good as it's safety and anti-harassment features. Period.

It doesn't matter how good the software is, or how much better than YouTube it is, if only abusers can use it. Your userbase will be completely full of the same shitty people who made YT completely unusable for anything other than a free video dump because there's no barriers stopping them from kicking off everyone else off it.

Building a social platform means understanding why YT and other community sites have failed.

@rigelk rigelk changed the title from Feature Request: Option to disable auto-acceptance of follows (manual acceptance) to Option to disable auto-acceptance of follows (manual acceptance) Oct 3, 2018

@phikal

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@phikal

phikal Oct 3, 2018

Practically speaking, would this mean that some instances would have to disable RSS/Atom feeds? Since if the argument is, as @gordonzola mentioned:

Then, the trolls automatically receive content that they can harrass. Not enabling auto-accept for follow requests would make this a little bit harder. The difference can be huge

they could just jump over to RSS (and knowing them that's not the issue), maybe even extending Peertube to circumvent the lack of auto-acceptance. And even if that's disabled, HTML can still be parsed for updates. Unless I'm missing something, this issue seems far more intrinsic to federated networks (and the Internet in general) than that it could be solved with an option.

Edit: Never mind this if it deters from what I'm asking.

phikal commented Oct 3, 2018

Practically speaking, would this mean that some instances would have to disable RSS/Atom feeds? Since if the argument is, as @gordonzola mentioned:

Then, the trolls automatically receive content that they can harrass. Not enabling auto-accept for follow requests would make this a little bit harder. The difference can be huge

they could just jump over to RSS (and knowing them that's not the issue), maybe even extending Peertube to circumvent the lack of auto-acceptance. And even if that's disabled, HTML can still be parsed for updates. Unless I'm missing something, this issue seems far more intrinsic to federated networks (and the Internet in general) than that it could be solved with an option.

Edit: Never mind this if it deters from what I'm asking.

@techknowlogick

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@techknowlogick

techknowlogick Oct 3, 2018

they could just jump over to RSS

that's right, however it at least adds some barrier to harassment, as well as the issue is that I don't want content syndicated to another instance automatically (RSS doesn't push to other instances, RSS has to be configured on a users end to pull periodically, as well it doesn't populate other instances). By using RSS they are still able to "automatically" discover content (in their feed reader), but like I said it makes it harder. If someone is super motivated to harass disabling RSS feeds wouldn't deter them (for example they could write something in to call the api).

If you take it another level, just by putting out information without RSS feeds or activity pub harassment is possible, this issue is just by making it a little more difficult for those who intend on harassing to give a slight reprieve to those who may be harassed. And as @gordonzola said "The difference can be huge"

techknowlogick commented Oct 3, 2018

they could just jump over to RSS

that's right, however it at least adds some barrier to harassment, as well as the issue is that I don't want content syndicated to another instance automatically (RSS doesn't push to other instances, RSS has to be configured on a users end to pull periodically, as well it doesn't populate other instances). By using RSS they are still able to "automatically" discover content (in their feed reader), but like I said it makes it harder. If someone is super motivated to harass disabling RSS feeds wouldn't deter them (for example they could write something in to call the api).

If you take it another level, just by putting out information without RSS feeds or activity pub harassment is possible, this issue is just by making it a little more difficult for those who intend on harassing to give a slight reprieve to those who may be harassed. And as @gordonzola said "The difference can be huge"

@XenonFiber

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@XenonFiber

XenonFiber Oct 3, 2018

@techknowlogick @phikal And once we can completely suspend instances and remote users, it'll be as easy as banning their new accounts and preemptively blocking those non-moderated instances.

They can still see public content in the same way as everyone else, but they'll be stopped from interacting with it.

XenonFiber commented Oct 3, 2018

@techknowlogick @phikal And once we can completely suspend instances and remote users, it'll be as easy as banning their new accounts and preemptively blocking those non-moderated instances.

They can still see public content in the same way as everyone else, but they'll be stopped from interacting with it.

@rigelk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rigelk

rigelk Oct 3, 2018

Collaborator

@XenonFiber indeed, actor blocks will be the most effective solution in the long term. Making follow requests approvable/deniable will also help detect actors to block.

Collaborator

rigelk commented Oct 3, 2018

@XenonFiber indeed, actor blocks will be the most effective solution in the long term. Making follow requests approvable/deniable will also help detect actors to block.

@witcheslive

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@witcheslive

witcheslive Oct 3, 2018

@phikal not every little thing has to solve every problem to be useful. sure they can still get at the content elsewhere, there's always going to be block dodging with public content, but that doesn't make it useless. the point is less to keep people from viewing your content and more to prevent people engaging with it in a harassing way.

to use a practical example, think of how an entire cottage industry exists on youtube of "skeptic" dipwads making video replies to Antia Sarkeesian's videos. if YouTube wasn't shitty, and let femfreq/Anita block bad faith actors from these video replies, an entire subindustry of creeps wouldn't exist that literally make money off of harassing women.

witcheslive commented Oct 3, 2018

@phikal not every little thing has to solve every problem to be useful. sure they can still get at the content elsewhere, there's always going to be block dodging with public content, but that doesn't make it useless. the point is less to keep people from viewing your content and more to prevent people engaging with it in a harassing way.

to use a practical example, think of how an entire cottage industry exists on youtube of "skeptic" dipwads making video replies to Antia Sarkeesian's videos. if YouTube wasn't shitty, and let femfreq/Anita block bad faith actors from these video replies, an entire subindustry of creeps wouldn't exist that literally make money off of harassing women.

@phikal

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@phikal

phikal Oct 3, 2018

@witcheslive @techknowlogick @XenonFiber Ok, so basically RSS/Atom wouldn't have to be suspended for this, right? (We obviously have different things that deter us from YouTube, but that's really not what I'm after)

phikal commented Oct 3, 2018

@witcheslive @techknowlogick @XenonFiber Ok, so basically RSS/Atom wouldn't have to be suspended for this, right? (We obviously have different things that deter us from YouTube, but that's really not what I'm after)

@Chocobozzz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Chocobozzz

Chocobozzz Oct 4, 2018

Owner

Hum.

I asked one question: "Why would you want to refuse a follow?". It is the basis of software engineering, when the developer does not understand the feature or the use case. I don't think it deserves these 👎 nor some rude comments. Remember there are real people behind projects, that work very hard (some of them for free after their own work) to improve their software so their users are happy.

We don't build PeerTube for us, we build it for people. It's the reason why we take time to understand each issue, to correctly define the scope, or to propose better alternative to some use cases.

So, I asked this simple question because at this time and in my opinion, instances refusing follows of other instances was useless:

  • PeerTube has (at the moment) 3 privacy video settings: private, unlisted and public. Private videos are not federated, and unlisted/public videos are shared by the instance actor.
    • Then you could have told me: "I want this feature to protect my unlisted video"
    • ➡️ #944 would have been the appropriate issue
  • If you don't want that the public content of your instance to be on other websites, then it's more difficult because we can't really control that. People can make embed of your videos for example
    • Then you could have told me: "We could add another setting to the video to prevent embed!"
    • ➡️ Let's create this issue!
  • If you want to control your video audience, then what you want is another privacy setting "Only my followers can see this video" + "Ability for a channel to manually accept followers".
    • ➡️ Let's create these issues!
  • If you want to prevent other instance/people to be notified about new content on your instance, for example to limit harassment then it's useless because they have RSS feeds, that is much more simpler to use than creating a PeerTube instance
    • Then you could have told me: "We could disable RSS feeds, or only enable them for local users"
    • ➡️ Let's create this issue!
  • etc
  • etc

That's how we collaborate. By asking questions that may silly to specify needs, and find other features that could be interesting. Not by posting sarcastic comments making us look like idiots.

I think the scope is well defined, so please let's stop commenting on this issue unless we want to share something new/technical information.

I really need a break 😔

Owner

Chocobozzz commented Oct 4, 2018

Hum.

I asked one question: "Why would you want to refuse a follow?". It is the basis of software engineering, when the developer does not understand the feature or the use case. I don't think it deserves these 👎 nor some rude comments. Remember there are real people behind projects, that work very hard (some of them for free after their own work) to improve their software so their users are happy.

We don't build PeerTube for us, we build it for people. It's the reason why we take time to understand each issue, to correctly define the scope, or to propose better alternative to some use cases.

So, I asked this simple question because at this time and in my opinion, instances refusing follows of other instances was useless:

  • PeerTube has (at the moment) 3 privacy video settings: private, unlisted and public. Private videos are not federated, and unlisted/public videos are shared by the instance actor.
    • Then you could have told me: "I want this feature to protect my unlisted video"
    • ➡️ #944 would have been the appropriate issue
  • If you don't want that the public content of your instance to be on other websites, then it's more difficult because we can't really control that. People can make embed of your videos for example
    • Then you could have told me: "We could add another setting to the video to prevent embed!"
    • ➡️ Let's create this issue!
  • If you want to control your video audience, then what you want is another privacy setting "Only my followers can see this video" + "Ability for a channel to manually accept followers".
    • ➡️ Let's create these issues!
  • If you want to prevent other instance/people to be notified about new content on your instance, for example to limit harassment then it's useless because they have RSS feeds, that is much more simpler to use than creating a PeerTube instance
    • Then you could have told me: "We could disable RSS feeds, or only enable them for local users"
    • ➡️ Let's create this issue!
  • etc
  • etc

That's how we collaborate. By asking questions that may silly to specify needs, and find other features that could be interesting. Not by posting sarcastic comments making us look like idiots.

I think the scope is well defined, so please let's stop commenting on this issue unless we want to share something new/technical information.

I really need a break 😔

@witcheslive

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@witcheslive

witcheslive Oct 4, 2018

@phikal With the disclaimer that I only have a cursory knowledge of how peertube works, yes. Just like on a regular Mastodon instance, I'm aware that things like posting locked when anyone can follow me or blocking someone doesn't absolutely keep someone from reading my toots, but it makes it more obnoxious (and clear if they're evading.) Similarly, I don't see much difference between RSS and right-click-open-in-incognito in this case. Though given what Chocobozzz said I might misunderstand this slightly, and maybe an option to disable RSS at various levels (per video, channel, user, instance) would be a good way to give people better control over their content. I'm assuming that RSS is done non-authenticated? Or are there different RSS feeds depending on authentication?

@Chocobozzz I get that it can be overwhelming to get a strong reaction to things, but please consider that being marginalized in any way is to be relentlessly attacked, and constantly. While we cheer on projects like this, we've been let down repeatedly by people running, well, projects like this getting myopic and defensive when concerns are brought up from people who have different needs or use cases than the people who run them. Peertube is a pretty cool concept, and I pray for the day we can share videos without dealing with a nazi entryism algorithm, but I'm not just going to settle for literally anything, and want to see it actually done right this time, y'kno?

witcheslive commented Oct 4, 2018

@phikal With the disclaimer that I only have a cursory knowledge of how peertube works, yes. Just like on a regular Mastodon instance, I'm aware that things like posting locked when anyone can follow me or blocking someone doesn't absolutely keep someone from reading my toots, but it makes it more obnoxious (and clear if they're evading.) Similarly, I don't see much difference between RSS and right-click-open-in-incognito in this case. Though given what Chocobozzz said I might misunderstand this slightly, and maybe an option to disable RSS at various levels (per video, channel, user, instance) would be a good way to give people better control over their content. I'm assuming that RSS is done non-authenticated? Or are there different RSS feeds depending on authentication?

@Chocobozzz I get that it can be overwhelming to get a strong reaction to things, but please consider that being marginalized in any way is to be relentlessly attacked, and constantly. While we cheer on projects like this, we've been let down repeatedly by people running, well, projects like this getting myopic and defensive when concerns are brought up from people who have different needs or use cases than the people who run them. Peertube is a pretty cool concept, and I pray for the day we can share videos without dealing with a nazi entryism algorithm, but I'm not just going to settle for literally anything, and want to see it actually done right this time, y'kno?

@rigelk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rigelk

rigelk Oct 4, 2018

Collaborator

@witcheslive right now RSS feeds are public, except for a user's subscription feed which are authentified. We're planning to extend that to every feed (through an option I guess). Users would have their own personal access token for RSS feeds.

Collaborator

rigelk commented Oct 4, 2018

@witcheslive right now RSS feeds are public, except for a user's subscription feed which are authentified. We're planning to extend that to every feed (through an option I guess). Users would have their own personal access token for RSS feeds.

@sydneyfalk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sydneyfalk

sydneyfalk Oct 4, 2018

I can create a website that parse your HTML (RSS and API are just easier to code) and display it on my website to harass you.

Most. Harassers. Can't.

Most users can't either. Most people do not have the specialized knowledge you do, and therefore are at the mercy of those implementing features.

In my view, you can't totally "lock the door" if you share public content.

Nobody said that. I'm not sure why that keeps coming up, but I'll quote the rest of my response:

But they're still deterrents, and deterrents are useful. Same reason we use passwords -- not for some mythic 'absolute security', but for a bit more security than zero.

Hopefully it's clearer that this isn't intended as a panacea but a preventative deterrent.

It's a vaccine, not chemotherapy, if we use a somewhat more accurate medical analogy. Vaccines don't mean you can't get sick, merely that you're less likely to get sick and your immune system is slightly more robust. Chemo is a radical, multiple-system-affecting process, and can make people very sick by itself -- hence, it's hauled out as a big cannon for a big problem.

Vaccines help hold off the flu of unskilled harassers; skilled harassers are beyond the ability of users to prevent or detect, but there's no reason to facilitate unskilled harassers just because skilled harassers exist.

sydneyfalk commented Oct 4, 2018

I can create a website that parse your HTML (RSS and API are just easier to code) and display it on my website to harass you.

Most. Harassers. Can't.

Most users can't either. Most people do not have the specialized knowledge you do, and therefore are at the mercy of those implementing features.

In my view, you can't totally "lock the door" if you share public content.

Nobody said that. I'm not sure why that keeps coming up, but I'll quote the rest of my response:

But they're still deterrents, and deterrents are useful. Same reason we use passwords -- not for some mythic 'absolute security', but for a bit more security than zero.

Hopefully it's clearer that this isn't intended as a panacea but a preventative deterrent.

It's a vaccine, not chemotherapy, if we use a somewhat more accurate medical analogy. Vaccines don't mean you can't get sick, merely that you're less likely to get sick and your immune system is slightly more robust. Chemo is a radical, multiple-system-affecting process, and can make people very sick by itself -- hence, it's hauled out as a big cannon for a big problem.

Vaccines help hold off the flu of unskilled harassers; skilled harassers are beyond the ability of users to prevent or detect, but there's no reason to facilitate unskilled harassers just because skilled harassers exist.

@DeadSuperHero

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DeadSuperHero

DeadSuperHero Oct 4, 2018

From the perspective of an account, having the ability to choose whether or not to deliver your content to a specific Actor or Instance is actually not completely unreasonable. Conceptually it's not that far removed from blocking; it's likely that some people would prefer to be selective in curating their audience.

I'd say the only real sticking point is in determining whether this concept can co-exist with public-facing content, since it is accessible to everyone. Would it be unreasonable to just have a privacy level for accounts where those follow requests have to manually accepted by someone who otherwise doesn't have public-facing videos?

DeadSuperHero commented Oct 4, 2018

From the perspective of an account, having the ability to choose whether or not to deliver your content to a specific Actor or Instance is actually not completely unreasonable. Conceptually it's not that far removed from blocking; it's likely that some people would prefer to be selective in curating their audience.

I'd say the only real sticking point is in determining whether this concept can co-exist with public-facing content, since it is accessible to everyone. Would it be unreasonable to just have a privacy level for accounts where those follow requests have to manually accepted by someone who otherwise doesn't have public-facing videos?

@DavidLibeau

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DavidLibeau

DavidLibeau Oct 4, 2018

Contributor

@DavidLibeau So you're asking to leave the door wide open then?

For my use : sharing videos (SHARING), I think that citation is not only wanted but needed.
That does not mean that I don't understand your needs, but I also think that you can't say "we want that and the core dev team is not answering us" without proposing technical solutions. And I also think that technical solutions are heavily hard to find for this issue and maybe (or maybe not) can't fit with a video sharing system. So, in my view, we need to find clearly the whole system for a video sharing service (not for PeerTube) that's fit your needs, and after that, try to see how to implement it for PeerTube.

Contributor

DavidLibeau commented Oct 4, 2018

@DavidLibeau So you're asking to leave the door wide open then?

For my use : sharing videos (SHARING), I think that citation is not only wanted but needed.
That does not mean that I don't understand your needs, but I also think that you can't say "we want that and the core dev team is not answering us" without proposing technical solutions. And I also think that technical solutions are heavily hard to find for this issue and maybe (or maybe not) can't fit with a video sharing system. So, in my view, we need to find clearly the whole system for a video sharing service (not for PeerTube) that's fit your needs, and after that, try to see how to implement it for PeerTube.

@XenonFiber

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@XenonFiber

XenonFiber Oct 4, 2018

@DavidLibeau The technical solution I propose is literally the title of this issue, and there are plenty of other detailed comments here to reference from.

XenonFiber commented Oct 4, 2018

@DavidLibeau The technical solution I propose is literally the title of this issue, and there are plenty of other detailed comments here to reference from.

@sydneyfalk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sydneyfalk

sydneyfalk Oct 4, 2018

That does not mean that I don't understand your needs, but I also think that you can't say "we want that and the core dev team is not answering us" without proposing technical solutions.

I assumed "the option of screening your followers" was literally the described technical solution. I'm not very well acquainted with GitHub conventions of speech -- perhaps 'technical solution' is used to mean a provided implementation that's suggested as an addition? Then that would make sense. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean.

Regardless: Several places have this, and have not imploded or become walled gardens through some sort of magic. Mastodon's built on AP and implemented it, frex.

sydneyfalk commented Oct 4, 2018

That does not mean that I don't understand your needs, but I also think that you can't say "we want that and the core dev team is not answering us" without proposing technical solutions.

I assumed "the option of screening your followers" was literally the described technical solution. I'm not very well acquainted with GitHub conventions of speech -- perhaps 'technical solution' is used to mean a provided implementation that's suggested as an addition? Then that would make sense. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean.

Regardless: Several places have this, and have not imploded or become walled gardens through some sort of magic. Mastodon's built on AP and implemented it, frex.

@DavidLibeau

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DavidLibeau

DavidLibeau Oct 4, 2018

Contributor

@DavidLibeau The technical solution I propose is literally the title of this issue, and there are plenty of other detailed comments here to reference from.

The general case argument shows that the technical solution was a bit usseless. So we can accept a PR that implement an useless functionnality in PeerTube, or we can find systemic solutions that resolve the issue...

Contributor

DavidLibeau commented Oct 4, 2018

@DavidLibeau The technical solution I propose is literally the title of this issue, and there are plenty of other detailed comments here to reference from.

The general case argument shows that the technical solution was a bit usseless. So we can accept a PR that implement an useless functionnality in PeerTube, or we can find systemic solutions that resolve the issue...

@DavidLibeau

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DavidLibeau

DavidLibeau Oct 4, 2018

Contributor

Most. Harassers. Can't.

Copy an HTML embed code is up to everyone (and it's easier than creating a PeerTube server).

Contributor

DavidLibeau commented Oct 4, 2018

Most. Harassers. Can't.

Copy an HTML embed code is up to everyone (and it's easier than creating a PeerTube server).

@sydneyfalk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sydneyfalk

sydneyfalk Oct 4, 2018

The general case argument shows that the technical solution was a bit usseless.

It showed it couldn't solve everything, and further discussion indicated it wasn't expected to, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

systemic solutions that resolve the issue

You said yourself there isn't a solution. Even the measures you offered are defeatable.

A simple deterrent is literally all that's being asked for.

Copy an HTML embed code is up to everyone.

I assume you mean it's within anybody's ability. (And, actually, it technically isn't. Some people literally don't know what an embed code is. There are still plenty of technically unskilled people in the world. The fact you can do it in a heartbeat and I might be able to figure it out with a bit of time (with my rusty-ass tech skills from back when) doesn't mean every single rando can do it.)

The other things you described certainly weren't immediately accessible items to most people, though.

The point is not keeping skilled harassers out. The point is deterring unskilled harassers, which this would demonstrably do.

Regardless of all these things: Why shouldn't people be able to lock this door? What exactly is being lost here if people can screen their followers? (Other than, I guess, harassers complaining to admins that they can't harass as efficiently? Is that a thing? I don't admin anything, I know it's not something I could handle.)

sydneyfalk commented Oct 4, 2018

The general case argument shows that the technical solution was a bit usseless.

It showed it couldn't solve everything, and further discussion indicated it wasn't expected to, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

systemic solutions that resolve the issue

You said yourself there isn't a solution. Even the measures you offered are defeatable.

A simple deterrent is literally all that's being asked for.

Copy an HTML embed code is up to everyone.

I assume you mean it's within anybody's ability. (And, actually, it technically isn't. Some people literally don't know what an embed code is. There are still plenty of technically unskilled people in the world. The fact you can do it in a heartbeat and I might be able to figure it out with a bit of time (with my rusty-ass tech skills from back when) doesn't mean every single rando can do it.)

The other things you described certainly weren't immediately accessible items to most people, though.

The point is not keeping skilled harassers out. The point is deterring unskilled harassers, which this would demonstrably do.

Regardless of all these things: Why shouldn't people be able to lock this door? What exactly is being lost here if people can screen their followers? (Other than, I guess, harassers complaining to admins that they can't harass as efficiently? Is that a thing? I don't admin anything, I know it's not something I could handle.)

@sydneyfalk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sydneyfalk

sydneyfalk Oct 4, 2018

Maybe this will help. From a security perspective, a little bit is better than none, and this is a security issue, so let's go ahead and call it that.

  • This is intended as a deterrent for unskilled malicious actors.
  • This is not intended to be a solution to malicious acts, this is a solution to helping prevent malicious actions. Like passwords, or a front door lock. 'Completely lock' is meaningless with a front door lock, and front door locks are often easily picked (this I can confirm; I can do it myself, locksport's actually something I dabble in).
  • It doesn't appear to be something that's going to have vast negative impact on PeerTube.
  • It does appear to be preventative of something that would have a vast negative impact on PeerTube.
  • I have yet to see any reasonable explanation why users shouldn't have this option (and, indeed, the fact they can block a follower after they've been followed suggests it'd make sense to give them a preventative option in case they are actively trying to avoid malicious actors).

Hopefully this clears up any misunderstandings about what I'm trying to get across here.

sydneyfalk commented Oct 4, 2018

Maybe this will help. From a security perspective, a little bit is better than none, and this is a security issue, so let's go ahead and call it that.

  • This is intended as a deterrent for unskilled malicious actors.
  • This is not intended to be a solution to malicious acts, this is a solution to helping prevent malicious actions. Like passwords, or a front door lock. 'Completely lock' is meaningless with a front door lock, and front door locks are often easily picked (this I can confirm; I can do it myself, locksport's actually something I dabble in).
  • It doesn't appear to be something that's going to have vast negative impact on PeerTube.
  • It does appear to be preventative of something that would have a vast negative impact on PeerTube.
  • I have yet to see any reasonable explanation why users shouldn't have this option (and, indeed, the fact they can block a follower after they've been followed suggests it'd make sense to give them a preventative option in case they are actively trying to avoid malicious actors).

Hopefully this clears up any misunderstandings about what I'm trying to get across here.

@DavidLibeau

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DavidLibeau

DavidLibeau Oct 4, 2018

Contributor

Some people literally don't know what an embed code is.

If you have a website, any blog, and even more if you have a PeerTube server, you know what is a embed code.
If you don't want to add this into your anti-harassment solution, I don't see what you want.

Contributor

DavidLibeau commented Oct 4, 2018

Some people literally don't know what an embed code is.

If you have a website, any blog, and even more if you have a PeerTube server, you know what is a embed code.
If you don't want to add this into your anti-harassment solution, I don't see what you want.

@sydneyfalk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sydneyfalk

sydneyfalk Oct 4, 2018

Well, I had both of the first and I don't know what an embed code is, but that was a long time ago. (Tech moves quick, I'm aware.)

I'm not against adding anti-embedding as an option; I simply don't see why delaying a follower approval feature will somehow be better than giving a follower approval feature sooner and adding anti-embedding features later.

One's simple and helps immediately despite not keeping out skilled malicious actors, and the other one's more complex and could easily be added later (or added as a whole separate option, giving users finer control over their content and their account).

Do you have a Mastodon account? If you have a Mastodon account, there's a toggle in the settings for approving followers. They don't get to follow you automatically, you have to go to the list and approve or not. It's fairly straightforward.

That's literally the thing requested, AFAICT. I'm not sure how to make this more clear. (And, technically, I didn't request the feature. So maybe I've gotten it wrong. Entirely possible.)

sydneyfalk commented Oct 4, 2018

Well, I had both of the first and I don't know what an embed code is, but that was a long time ago. (Tech moves quick, I'm aware.)

I'm not against adding anti-embedding as an option; I simply don't see why delaying a follower approval feature will somehow be better than giving a follower approval feature sooner and adding anti-embedding features later.

One's simple and helps immediately despite not keeping out skilled malicious actors, and the other one's more complex and could easily be added later (or added as a whole separate option, giving users finer control over their content and their account).

Do you have a Mastodon account? If you have a Mastodon account, there's a toggle in the settings for approving followers. They don't get to follow you automatically, you have to go to the list and approve or not. It's fairly straightforward.

That's literally the thing requested, AFAICT. I'm not sure how to make this more clear. (And, technically, I didn't request the feature. So maybe I've gotten it wrong. Entirely possible.)

@DavidLibeau

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DavidLibeau

DavidLibeau Oct 4, 2018

Contributor

I simply don't see why delaying follower approval

Because adding useless features is loosing time and ressources, and it's not smart. I was not expecting to say that is a dev thread : but yes, we need to think before act. It's simple as that.

That's literally the thing requested

No that's not. What is requested is "disable auto-acceptance of follows", and we are talking of the instance level which is totally different from the account level.

Contributor

DavidLibeau commented Oct 4, 2018

I simply don't see why delaying follower approval

Because adding useless features is loosing time and ressources, and it's not smart. I was not expecting to say that is a dev thread : but yes, we need to think before act. It's simple as that.

That's literally the thing requested

No that's not. What is requested is "disable auto-acceptance of follows", and we are talking of the instance level which is totally different from the account level.

@techknowlogick

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@techknowlogick

techknowlogick Oct 4, 2018

@DavidLibeau what is being requested is the "Option to disable auto-acceptance of follows", key word there is "option". Just like with masto you can make an account private and have followers manually approved, you have the option to do that, it's not enforced and for those who harassment isn't a concern they don't need to enable it.

techknowlogick commented Oct 4, 2018

@DavidLibeau what is being requested is the "Option to disable auto-acceptance of follows", key word there is "option". Just like with masto you can make an account private and have followers manually approved, you have the option to do that, it's not enforced and for those who harassment isn't a concern they don't need to enable it.

@Nutomic

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Nutomic

Nutomic Oct 4, 2018

Contributor

This issue is going really off topic. The original post was about an option to disable auto-acceptance of follows from other instances. We all know that it is only a partial solution against harassment, but it would be useful nonetheless. If someone makes a PR with a sensible implementation of this feature, I am sure it would be merged.

If you want to block RSS feeds, block embeds, or anything else please open a new issue.

And if you want to talk about solutions against harassment in general, either a) open a new issue b) use the forum c) use Matrix.

Contributor

Nutomic commented Oct 4, 2018

This issue is going really off topic. The original post was about an option to disable auto-acceptance of follows from other instances. We all know that it is only a partial solution against harassment, but it would be useful nonetheless. If someone makes a PR with a sensible implementation of this feature, I am sure it would be merged.

If you want to block RSS feeds, block embeds, or anything else please open a new issue.

And if you want to talk about solutions against harassment in general, either a) open a new issue b) use the forum c) use Matrix.

@DavidLibeau

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DavidLibeau

DavidLibeau Oct 4, 2018

Contributor

@DavidLibeau what is being requested is the "Option to disable auto-acceptance of follows", key word there is "option".

Yes that's an option, and I have nothing to say if it is effective (and is not against open web principles)

Contributor

DavidLibeau commented Oct 4, 2018

@DavidLibeau what is being requested is the "Option to disable auto-acceptance of follows", key word there is "option".

Yes that's an option, and I have nothing to say if it is effective (and is not against open web principles)

@sydneyfalk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sydneyfalk

sydneyfalk Oct 4, 2018

What is requested is "disable auto-acceptance of follows", and we are talking of the instance level which is totally different from the account level.

Then that's my mistake; as I said, I don't admin anything, and this is intentional. I don't want to handle people. I missed that it's at the admin level and not the account level.

My apologies for the misunderstanding; I do think the points are still relevant at the admin level for the same reasons, however.

As other contributors have clarified what things I wished to convey that are relevant, and I've largely exhausted anything I wanted to point out anyway, I'll take my leave of the conversation.

sydneyfalk commented Oct 4, 2018

What is requested is "disable auto-acceptance of follows", and we are talking of the instance level which is totally different from the account level.

Then that's my mistake; as I said, I don't admin anything, and this is intentional. I don't want to handle people. I missed that it's at the admin level and not the account level.

My apologies for the misunderstanding; I do think the points are still relevant at the admin level for the same reasons, however.

As other contributors have clarified what things I wished to convey that are relevant, and I've largely exhausted anything I wanted to point out anyway, I'll take my leave of the conversation.

@techknowlogick

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@techknowlogick

techknowlogick Oct 4, 2018

we are talking of the instance level which is totally different from the account level.

It's not totally different though. At the instance level it's as if all the accounts on one instance are following all the accounts of another instance. What @sydneyfalk has said is still relevant.

I think what needs to have been said has been, and so I'm going to (temporarily) mute this thread for myself in case others still wish to contribute to it.

techknowlogick commented Oct 4, 2018

we are talking of the instance level which is totally different from the account level.

It's not totally different though. At the instance level it's as if all the accounts on one instance are following all the accounts of another instance. What @sydneyfalk has said is still relevant.

I think what needs to have been said has been, and so I'm going to (temporarily) mute this thread for myself in case others still wish to contribute to it.

@DavidLibeau

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DavidLibeau

DavidLibeau Oct 4, 2018

Contributor

I missed that it's at the admin level and not the account level.

That's the goal of debating. We clearly saw that yes, a debate is needed, not for changing people though or convince them (or harass them by saying that "PeerTube is not < insert critism without giving solution here >"), but for better understanding our point of view and what is the best solution.
If we are only asking technical solutions, without knowing the system, without knowing the needs, (and I also talking about myself not knowing all of them) it will truly end with a useless topic where we debate of something we don't understand.

I do think the points are still relevant at the admin level

Maybe yes, but maybe not. I don't personnally clearly think that but, I heard people critisms of Mastodon centric admin moderation...

Contributor

DavidLibeau commented Oct 4, 2018

I missed that it's at the admin level and not the account level.

That's the goal of debating. We clearly saw that yes, a debate is needed, not for changing people though or convince them (or harass them by saying that "PeerTube is not < insert critism without giving solution here >"), but for better understanding our point of view and what is the best solution.
If we are only asking technical solutions, without knowing the system, without knowing the needs, (and I also talking about myself not knowing all of them) it will truly end with a useless topic where we debate of something we don't understand.

I do think the points are still relevant at the admin level

Maybe yes, but maybe not. I don't personnally clearly think that but, I heard people critisms of Mastodon centric admin moderation...

@DavidLibeau

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DavidLibeau

DavidLibeau Oct 4, 2018

Contributor

It's not totally different though.

On a technical point of view, I think it is not because the federation is manage through the @PeerTube Actor object of the PeerTube instance, but in the democratic/organization field, it is trully different, as a centric-only moderation could be seen as autoritarism for some people.

Contributor

DavidLibeau commented Oct 4, 2018

It's not totally different though.

On a technical point of view, I think it is not because the federation is manage through the @PeerTube Actor object of the PeerTube instance, but in the democratic/organization field, it is trully different, as a centric-only moderation could be seen as autoritarism for some people.

@mskavanagh

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mskavanagh

mskavanagh Oct 5, 2018

I'm reading this and the ridiculous responses from people who don't seem to understand the need for this. But I took a look at PeerTube instances a while back and at least 2 or 3 of them are straight-up fascist, so, I think it's actually really important to be able to curate where your content goes.

mskavanagh commented Oct 5, 2018

I'm reading this and the ridiculous responses from people who don't seem to understand the need for this. But I took a look at PeerTube instances a while back and at least 2 or 3 of them are straight-up fascist, so, I think it's actually really important to be able to curate where your content goes.

@DavidLibeau

This comment was marked as off-topic.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DavidLibeau

DavidLibeau Oct 5, 2018

Contributor

I'm reading this and the ridiculous responses from people who don't seem to understand the need for this.

Saying that rsponses are "ridiculous" is not only unrespectfull, but also harassing.
The other harass behaviours we can also see in this debate is that thing :

p1
p2

So can we just respect everybody's point of view and give arguments to try to propose solutions? Thanks.

Contributor

DavidLibeau commented Oct 5, 2018

I'm reading this and the ridiculous responses from people who don't seem to understand the need for this.

Saying that rsponses are "ridiculous" is not only unrespectfull, but also harassing.
The other harass behaviours we can also see in this debate is that thing :

p1
p2

So can we just respect everybody's point of view and give arguments to try to propose solutions? Thanks.

@mskavanagh

This comment was marked as off-topic.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mskavanagh

mskavanagh Oct 5, 2018

What exactly makes you think that you deserve respect? The fact that you're some random dude on github who doesn't understand the definition of harassment? The fact that you can't empathize with the other people in this thread?

Like, I don't do this "respectful" bullshit. If you're an asshole and being intentionally obtuse I'm going to tell you that you are, and you are.

mskavanagh commented Oct 5, 2018

What exactly makes you think that you deserve respect? The fact that you're some random dude on github who doesn't understand the definition of harassment? The fact that you can't empathize with the other people in this thread?

Like, I don't do this "respectful" bullshit. If you're an asshole and being intentionally obtuse I'm going to tell you that you are, and you are.

@mskavanagh

This comment was marked as off-topic.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mskavanagh

mskavanagh Oct 5, 2018

On the issue of solutions, I'm pretty sure solutions were already given, but since you're pretty much the posterchild of the average techbro, nothing's gonna get done.

mskavanagh commented Oct 5, 2018

On the issue of solutions, I'm pretty sure solutions were already given, but since you're pretty much the posterchild of the average techbro, nothing's gonna get done.

@DavidLibeau

This comment was marked as off-topic.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DavidLibeau

DavidLibeau Oct 5, 2018

Contributor

What exactly makes you think that you deserve respect?

The fact that I an human like all of us.

doesn't understand the definition of harassment

I could say that this is a "definition" bullshit, too. but no, this is the center of the debate, if we do not define what is our definition of harassment, we will trully not understand each other.

The fact that you can't empathize with the other people in this thread?

Here is some word I said in this thread :

  • That does not mean that I don't understand your needs,

  • I also think that technical solutions are heavily hard to find for this issue and maybe (or maybe not) can't fit with a video sharing system. So, in my view, we need to find clearly the whole system for a video sharing service (not for PeerTube) that's fit your needs

  • we can find systemic solutions that resolve the issue...

  • If you don't want to add this into your anti-harassment solution, I don't see what you want.

  • Yes that's an option, and I have nothing to say if it is effective

  • If we are only asking technical solutions, without knowing the system, without knowing the needs, (and I also talking about myself not knowing all of them) it will truly end with a useless topic where we debate of something we don't understand.

But if you want empathize, I just said that this response was feeled as harass in my point of view. So if you are empathize, can you stop? Becaus yes, I am feeling harassed right now with your insults.

Contributor

DavidLibeau commented Oct 5, 2018

What exactly makes you think that you deserve respect?

The fact that I an human like all of us.

doesn't understand the definition of harassment

I could say that this is a "definition" bullshit, too. but no, this is the center of the debate, if we do not define what is our definition of harassment, we will trully not understand each other.

The fact that you can't empathize with the other people in this thread?

Here is some word I said in this thread :

  • That does not mean that I don't understand your needs,

  • I also think that technical solutions are heavily hard to find for this issue and maybe (or maybe not) can't fit with a video sharing system. So, in my view, we need to find clearly the whole system for a video sharing service (not for PeerTube) that's fit your needs

  • we can find systemic solutions that resolve the issue...

  • If you don't want to add this into your anti-harassment solution, I don't see what you want.

  • Yes that's an option, and I have nothing to say if it is effective

  • If we are only asking technical solutions, without knowing the system, without knowing the needs, (and I also talking about myself not knowing all of them) it will truly end with a useless topic where we debate of something we don't understand.

But if you want empathize, I just said that this response was feeled as harass in my point of view. So if you are empathize, can you stop? Becaus yes, I am feeling harassed right now with your insults.

@DavidLibeau

This comment was marked as off-topic.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DavidLibeau

DavidLibeau Oct 5, 2018

Contributor

I'm pretty sure solutions were already given

The fact is we ended by saying that the initial request of "manual acceptance" were on the instance level and not on the account level, as people were proposing. So it's not, "I disagree with you"/"you disagree with me" it is : "we don't clearly know what is the best".

Contributor

DavidLibeau commented Oct 5, 2018

I'm pretty sure solutions were already given

The fact is we ended by saying that the initial request of "manual acceptance" were on the instance level and not on the account level, as people were proposing. So it's not, "I disagree with you"/"you disagree with me" it is : "we don't clearly know what is the best".

@Laurelai

This comment was marked as off-topic.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Laurelai

Laurelai Oct 5, 2018

Honestly i would not waste your time with a product that is this unresponsive to user and admin safety.

Laurelai commented Oct 5, 2018

Honestly i would not waste your time with a product that is this unresponsive to user and admin safety.

@humanitiesNerd

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@humanitiesNerd

humanitiesNerd Oct 5, 2018

I think many people are looking at this as a solution to problems that don't really exist.

So was the opening of this issue a stupid idea ?

People are arguing at length, they all come from experiences on other platforms before Peertube, the last one to have this kind of discussion was Mastodon

On mastodon, many admins use instance blocking to prevent bad actors from harassing their users, if you want to completely avoid all "bad actors" without blocking them yourself, you can always go to your instance's admin.

If you join an instance on any federated service with enforced rules against harassment and such, I would argue the job should come to the admin, who should be doing their job in protecting their users.

And here people are arguing against what you think. At lenght.

humanitiesNerd commented Oct 5, 2018

I think many people are looking at this as a solution to problems that don't really exist.

So was the opening of this issue a stupid idea ?

People are arguing at length, they all come from experiences on other platforms before Peertube, the last one to have this kind of discussion was Mastodon

On mastodon, many admins use instance blocking to prevent bad actors from harassing their users, if you want to completely avoid all "bad actors" without blocking them yourself, you can always go to your instance's admin.

If you join an instance on any federated service with enforced rules against harassment and such, I would argue the job should come to the admin, who should be doing their job in protecting their users.

And here people are arguing against what you think. At lenght.

@humanitiesNerd

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@humanitiesNerd

humanitiesNerd Oct 5, 2018

general case argument: someone could register a domain that is a slur (take your pick of whichever one you want) then syndicate my content there.

You can create any website that looks like yours and download PeerTube/YouTube/whatever videos to scam the users.

But that's a cost.

That's not a PeerTube issue, that's a content protection issue. You solution is DRM video or other tech like this.

So now of someone disagrees with you is supoprting DRM ? Wow.

It is my kind and sincere hope that the admins listen to the folks here and what they are saying.

This issue was open one day ago and you are alredy saying that nobody is listenning?

In my view, to totally "lock the door" (your words) you need to :

No. Their words never were the ones you claim they were. You are putting in their mouths something they never argued.

* protect your videos : with DRM protections, or other tech like this to prevent downloading.

This is offensive

* disable embed : by blocking IP and cross origin domains.

* disable data parsing : by disabling API, RSS/Atom Feed ; and even disable HTML, maybe with a Canvas or Image render of the website.
  What else do we need to "lock the door"? thinking

What you need has been already suggested. You don't need to think that much

humanitiesNerd commented Oct 5, 2018

general case argument: someone could register a domain that is a slur (take your pick of whichever one you want) then syndicate my content there.

You can create any website that looks like yours and download PeerTube/YouTube/whatever videos to scam the users.

But that's a cost.

That's not a PeerTube issue, that's a content protection issue. You solution is DRM video or other tech like this.

So now of someone disagrees with you is supoprting DRM ? Wow.

It is my kind and sincere hope that the admins listen to the folks here and what they are saying.

This issue was open one day ago and you are alredy saying that nobody is listenning?

In my view, to totally "lock the door" (your words) you need to :

No. Their words never were the ones you claim they were. You are putting in their mouths something they never argued.

* protect your videos : with DRM protections, or other tech like this to prevent downloading.

This is offensive

* disable embed : by blocking IP and cross origin domains.

* disable data parsing : by disabling API, RSS/Atom Feed ; and even disable HTML, maybe with a Canvas or Image render of the website.
  What else do we need to "lock the door"? thinking

What you need has been already suggested. You don't need to think that much

@humanitiesNerd

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@humanitiesNerd

humanitiesNerd Oct 5, 2018

I simply don't see why delaying follower approval

Because adding useless features is loosing time and ressources, and it's not smart. I was not expecting to say that is a dev thread : but yes, we need to think before act. It's simple as that.

So you thin that te cost raise imposed on harassers by this feature wouldn't be there

Because off course the white cis dude now better than the harassed people themselves

You should be thanking them for coming here and contribute. Because this issue is a contribution. If there's someone wasting time it's you

Instead you are patronizing them

They don't now what they're taling about (you do, of course) and they don't realize what they're asking for

humanitiesNerd commented Oct 5, 2018

I simply don't see why delaying follower approval

Because adding useless features is loosing time and ressources, and it's not smart. I was not expecting to say that is a dev thread : but yes, we need to think before act. It's simple as that.

So you thin that te cost raise imposed on harassers by this feature wouldn't be there

Because off course the white cis dude now better than the harassed people themselves

You should be thanking them for coming here and contribute. Because this issue is a contribution. If there's someone wasting time it's you

Instead you are patronizing them

They don't now what they're taling about (you do, of course) and they don't realize what they're asking for

@DavidLibeau

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DavidLibeau

DavidLibeau Oct 5, 2018

Contributor

So now of someone disagrees with you is supoprting DRM ? Wow.

No, I'm debatting. I'm proposing solutions first, discuss about them with others, and then I give my opinion. My opinion is I strongly disagre of the use of DRM, if you want to know.

No. Their words never were the ones you claim they were.

If so, I'm sorry, I never wanted to do that. But when someon is saying that he want to "close the door", yes, I am trying to find want he/she wants. Your role then is to clarify the needs with arguments.

(you do, of course)

I will not debate with your ad nominem insults. But for this, non, I never claim me as knowing more than others. See :

If we are only asking technical solutions, without knowing the system, without knowing the needs, (and I also talking about myself not knowing all of them) it will truly end with a useless topic where we debate of something we don't understand.

You should be thanking them for coming here and contribute. Because this issue is a contribution. If there's someone wasting time it's you

But I thank them. And I thank everybody that is debating (when there are no insults). It is never wasting time debating, it is learning from others. And that's why I'm debating, because I think we need to improve the moderation tools of PeerTube.

Contributor

DavidLibeau commented Oct 5, 2018

So now of someone disagrees with you is supoprting DRM ? Wow.

No, I'm debatting. I'm proposing solutions first, discuss about them with others, and then I give my opinion. My opinion is I strongly disagre of the use of DRM, if you want to know.

No. Their words never were the ones you claim they were.

If so, I'm sorry, I never wanted to do that. But when someon is saying that he want to "close the door", yes, I am trying to find want he/she wants. Your role then is to clarify the needs with arguments.

(you do, of course)

I will not debate with your ad nominem insults. But for this, non, I never claim me as knowing more than others. See :

If we are only asking technical solutions, without knowing the system, without knowing the needs, (and I also talking about myself not knowing all of them) it will truly end with a useless topic where we debate of something we don't understand.

You should be thanking them for coming here and contribute. Because this issue is a contribution. If there's someone wasting time it's you

But I thank them. And I thank everybody that is debating (when there are no insults). It is never wasting time debating, it is learning from others. And that's why I'm debating, because I think we need to improve the moderation tools of PeerTube.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment