Limit maximum visibility of local silenced users to unlisted #9583
Conversation
| ApplicationRecord.transaction do | ||
| status = account.statuses.create!(text: text, | ||
| media_attachments: media || [], | ||
| thread: in_reply_to, | ||
| sensitive: (options[:sensitive].nil? ? account.user&.setting_default_sensitive : options[:sensitive]) || options[:spoiler_text].present?, | ||
| spoiler_text: options[:spoiler_text] || '', | ||
| visibility: options[:visibility] || account.user&.setting_default_privacy, | ||
| visibility: visibility, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This does give away to the user that they are silenced. I thought you want to hook into the ActivityPub-facing JSON to force it there. Although you could argue that they can look at the ActivityPub JSON likewise to find out, so maybe this is the simplest solution...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
They can already to this by looking at the public timeline of their instance…?
Also, I'm not sure I see the point of silently silencing a local user. Shouldn't a decision about a local user be known to them?
|
I think this is a good way to treat this, to limit where their posts can reach. Though I agree it exposes that the user was silenced, and maybe plugging directly into federation code would be better. (but then from other instances they could have the same information, maybe, so 🤷🏽♂️) In my instances I'm always a bit reticent to silence local users. It means I cannot see easily (without going to the admin interface) what they're posting anymore, but they keep posting. This brings the silencing closer to sandboxing, which I think it's what I would want for some cases. |
|
Okay, now with #9519 communicating "your account is limited" to end-users it makes more sense for this change to limit post visibility in a way that's obvious to those end-users. |
Fixes #9580