“Disable replies” feature

[nclm]

Most blogging systems and some social networks like Dribbble (possibly Instagram?) have a “disable comments/replies” feature. I wonder if it could be of use in Mastodon?

Adding a “Disable replies” checkbox in the privacy controls when posting a message would remove the reply icon (and possible other related UI) to the toot once it is posted. It won’t prevent the person to be contacted about the toot, but will not make it a one-click affair any more and might be an explicit way to dissuade potential comments about it.

If someone is posting something personal/controversial/etc in order shoutout/vent/etc about without the aim of starting a conversation, it could be useful.

• I searched or browsed the repo’s other issues to ensure this is not a duplicate.

[Cassolotl]

I'd be curious to hear from the thumbs-down people why they feel this is a bad idea!

[codesections]

I strongly support this suggestion.

One additional suggestion: Could we have privacy settings for replies? In my ideal world, users could set three settings:

• Public (the current setting—anyone can reply)
• Follower only
• No replies

This would let someone receive some replies, but still retain some control over the number (especially if combined with approving follows).

[codesections]

I think this is a very positive suggestion in part because it would reinforce something I like a lot about Mastodon's culture: It is very welcoming to strangers joining in to a conversation (and making new Internet friends).

In contrast, Twitter has a strong culture of "what are these randos doing in my mentions?". That culture seems fairly toxic—not only does it explicitly push people away from some conversations, it also makes people who don't want to annoy anyone significantly more reluctant to join in conversations—even when their contributions would be welcome. I'd very much like to see Mastodon avoid this same dynamic.

Why do I think this feature would help avoid the dynamic? Wouldn't it just give people more tools to keep strangers out of their mentions?

No. What this feature would do is allow users to enforce something with technology instead of social pressure. The result of implementing this feature would be that people who don't set No Replies are explicitly welcoming replies—if you see a post that allows replies, you can be certain that the original tooter welcomes those replies. In contrast, right now or on Twitter, users have to guess about whether their reply would be welcome.

[Cassolotl]

I used to get a lot of unsolicited advice/criticism etc. in my mentions on Mastodon until I locked my account, way worse than on Twitter, so yeah - I think giving people the tools to make their lives easier and reduce the work involved in just posting something a bit controversial would be extremely helpful.

Mastodon-the-project talks a lot about anti-abuse features and curating a safe environment for yourself and whatnot, and we have a lot of tools now that make communication start with consent. I think this feature would be in line with that, giving people a tool to withdraw consent to respond.

I think for me I wouldn't need such granular control for the don't-@-me. If I wanted only my followers to be able to reply, I would probably set the post to followers-only anyway. But that's me!

[saper]

@codesections I was wondering a lot about reply "reach" (dislike the word "privacy" here) of the replies. I really miss replies on the public timelines - this is what I like on Pleroma that those get displayed there. I think that "no public timeline" could be the default setting for a reply if most people are concerned.
Having said that, I am not always sure if my reply to the existing thread is really welcome.

@Cassolotl thanks for calling me out, I'll consider that. For now I believe the emoji is quite an appropriate reaction.

[saper]

@codesections one thing that struck me once I re-read my reply. I think it is a pretty common case when two people are engaged in the exchange about something and not necessarily want to have somebody else joining in. How could this be solved (apart from switching to DMs of course)?

[rysiekpl]

I see why it's needed but I am just a tad concerned it could be used for dogpiling. Scenario:

1. Person A publishes a toot that is not popular with a particular crowd
2. people from the particular crowd start @-mentioning Person A in their toots, attacking them, but disabling replies on these toots, making it harder for the person to respond.

I still like the idea, so perhaps two potential ideas for a solution here:

1. make it impossible to disable replies on a toot that contains any @-mentions; or
2. if a toot has @-mentions, "disable replies" does not disable the replies from people who are @-mentioned in it.

I think I like 2. better here, since it would also enable the "public, but limited conversation" functionality (i.e. having a public conversation but with only select parties, as opposed to using DMs for that).

[codesections]

@rysiekpl, I really like your suggestion 2. I hadn't considered that threat, but you spotted it and came up with a great solution.

And that fits in well with how DMs currently work—anyone @ mentioned in a DM is included in the DM. So I think this would fit well with existing UX conventions.

[saper]

@rysiekpl but still even if solution 1 or 2 is implemented, people can still @ Person A ... (threat scenario 2), or am I missing something?

[Cassolotl]

@saper Like any abuse-reducing move, there are ways to circumvent it that take a little more effort. Like how we can't quote-toot, but we can take screenshots of toots in order to draw negative attention to them. I remember when people used "but a bad actor could refuse to honour delete requests" as a reason to not have a "delete toot" option. Sure, abusers will find a way to abuse, but making abusers have to work harder is still a good idea. Any barrier to abuse that has no downsides for good people is a good thing!

[rysiekpl]

@saper these were not two threat scenarios, this was a single scenario with two steps. And both solutions I propose solve it, since there is no way to dogpile on Person A by @-mentioning them but disabling replies (thus not giving them a chance to respond).

And that fits in well with how DMs currently work—anyone @ mentioned in a DM is included in the DM. So I think this would fit well with existing UX conventions.

@codesections exactly.

[saper]

ah, now I got it @rysiekpl - quite clever :)

Having said that I don't like this feature since this, again, creates artificial barriers in the conversation on the site.

I was thinking about something similar to this issue - to add an expiration date (say a week by default), after which it is no longer possible to respond or to boost the message. It could be useful to prevent spreading of messages that have only limited temporal importance and making sure old requests for help do not get boosted around forever, creating chain toots.

[thebaer]

Chiming in to say that besides liking this feature, I'd look forward to the Mastodon UI reflecting other AP platforms' choice in what they do with replies. For example, you can disable comments on PeerTube videos, and Write.as accepts no comments by default. Having some way for other platforms to set that preference on a per-post or per-user basis, and a visual indication of it in Mastodon, would be great.

[rysiekpl]

Having said that I don't like this feature since this, again, creates artificial barriers in the conversation on the site.

I really don't feel it does, @saper. It's as if you said DMs create artificial barriers in the conversation on the site. In fact, DMs create even stronger barriers! But they're useful and needed. So is this feature.

Most people will not use it for most things. But when it's needed it will be there.

Question is how to express this correctly in the UI/UX, but this is something that can be worked out, obviously.

[saper]

@rysiekpl You are right of course, but I am that kind of person who does not understand one-way channels on Telegram, always looking for a reply button there. Internet is a read-write medium to me :)