Skip to content
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

Share content with other wallabag users #679

Open
Nimn opened this issue May 9, 2014 · 21 comments
Labels

Comments

@Nimn
Copy link

@Nimn Nimn commented May 9, 2014

With a simple copy this should be fairly easy to implement but to prevent unsolicited content a mechanism to validate share between user should be developed. IMHO an efficient mechanism could be a user defined whitelist of user who can share content with.

@tcitworld

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@tcitworld tcitworld commented May 11, 2014

This can lead to a deep discussion. :)

The question is : what does matter with wallabag ? The content or the article address ?

  • If we only share the article address, the guy who will receive it may have access to a completely different content (geographic selection/restriction) or no content at all (censorship, technical issues).
  • If we share also the content, wallabag can now be considered as an anti-censorship system, with all what that implies. Moreover, in some cases content can be very heavy, and there's also images. And it's also what autoblogs already do.

But don't get me wrong, in both cases I will be happy to bring and see the feature, but I think in the second case it's better to wait until we have a plugin system and then bring it in that form.

End of deep discussion.

Now, for the actual talk. wallabag provides RSS feeds for categories, but also for tags ! So you could create a tag named "shares" and set all articles you want to share to this tag. Then with RSS people can do whatever they want.
Inconvenient ? People can have access to your token, and therefore to all your articles. So for now it's all or nothing.

Finally, about what you propose : this is very close to how usual social network work. And it could be done on Framabag. But wallabag goal is to be decentralised, and therefore you need to authenticate some way the people who you want to give access to. And apart from filtering with email addresses, there's no unique way to do it (we can't rely on Facebook, Twitter or Google authentifications).
A real solution could be to generate an unique link with direct access to the content, and it's your responsibility to give it only to the people you want to.

Don't hesitate to ask for more explanations if I'm not clear enough.
I also want to add I'm speaking for my own opinion.

@AmauryCarrade

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@AmauryCarrade AmauryCarrade commented May 11, 2014

A real solution could be to generate an unique link with direct access to the content, and it's your responsibility to give it only to the people you want to.

I think this is the better solution. Simple to implement, to use, without any complication like account creation/management, login...

We just want to share an article :-) .

@pVesian

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@pVesian pVesian commented May 11, 2014

Then why not just share the original link? For example if you click "Share"
it will get the origin URL and display a "Share it"-like menu with the
original URL. No need to publicly give away your Wallabag instance URL.

@AmauryCarrade

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@AmauryCarrade AmauryCarrade commented May 11, 2014

Yes, obviously this is a solution. But:

If we only share the article address, the guy who will receive it may have access to a completely different content (geographic selection/restriction) or no content at all (censorship, technical issues).

(And with this in mind, why do you want to share an article with another wallabag user inside wallabag?)

@tcitworld

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@tcitworld tcitworld commented May 11, 2014

This...already exists.
Well, for Twitter and mail at least.

@pVesian

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@pVesian pVesian commented May 11, 2014

As Tcit said, if we do it this way, Wallabag will be an anti-censorship
platform as many others, not a KISS read-it-later app.

@Nimn

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@Nimn Nimn commented May 11, 2014

Thank you for your explanations.

If we share also the content, wallabag can now be considered as an anti-censorship system, with all what that implies. Moreover, in some cases content can be very heavy, and there's also images. And it's also what autoblogs already do.

With regard to my personnal use case I use wallabag especially on news website. These websites often put a time limit for the access to their articles. It is not clearly an anti-censorship system but it can be considered as it.

With the decentralised aspect of wallabag in mind, sharing directly between users seems to be a bad idea. On the other side I really like this solution:

A real solution could be to generate an unique link with direct access to the content, and it's your responsibility to give it only to the people you want to.

IMHO this keeps wallabag KISS but if you think not it could be a good plugin.

@tcitworld

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@tcitworld tcitworld commented May 11, 2014

With regard to my personnal use case I use wallabag especially on news website. These websites often put a time limit for the access to their articles. It is not clearly an anti-censorship system but it can be considered as it.

This is indeed another problem. If websites have made it clear that their content should be available only for a limited time, the use of wallabag may be problematic.
Note that don't want to be seen as a killjoy here, I am strongly in favour of open-access and open-culture, but if it's stated in their terms and conditions, nobody wants to get a letter from their lawyers some day...
This joins another issue (#438) : saving articles with restricted access, that we hope to implement some way or another. If the user can share the article's content from it's own wallabag instance, it could certainly pose problems.

So these are questions which are worth thinking.

A real solution could be to generate an unique link with direct access to the content, and it's your responsibility to give it only to the people you want to.

IMHO this keeps wallabag KISS but if you think not it could be a good plugin.

Oh, this can be added in wallabag itself.

@Nimn

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@Nimn Nimn commented May 11, 2014

I understand your concern.

I have a pretty fair use for these kind of content but wallabag permits much more and sharing article content can stress this issue. This can lead to develop a blacklist of websites to not save from or to reimplement an artificial time limit for these websites (both being really annoying solutions for users...). By the way it is mainly a concern for public instances: to be developped as a plugin? Has an issue been opened for that legal question?

@AmauryCarrade

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@AmauryCarrade AmauryCarrade commented May 11, 2014

Has an issue been opened for that legal question?

If sharing is done through a generated link shared vith some people, the content is considered as private, I think.

And there is an inalienable right to private copying ...

(Correct me if I'm wrong.)

@tcitworld

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@tcitworld tcitworld commented May 11, 2014

You're right, private copying is totally legal, at least for the french law. (It's somewhere in our Code de la propriété intellectuelle)
But then the question is : to what extent is the copying private ?
At least it's defensible. I've seen several terms of use and they seem to consider private copying okay as long it's not to diffuse it "collectively" and to make money.

@danaskallman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@danaskallman danaskallman commented May 15, 2014

The use case I have at the moment is we have an install in place for a small group that works together and there are links (resources/archive) we want to share with each other to read with shared tags. So there may be links we want to keep for each user, but also a shared group space where we have links we can all view. How does this tie into the legal issues referenced and is a group a way to share within one wallabag instance?

@tcitworld

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@tcitworld tcitworld commented May 16, 2014

Well as long it's all working on your own wallabag server in private with a few people, I'm sure it's can be legal, at least tolerated (I think it really very like giving/lending a DVD to one of your friends).
I don't really understand the last part : you have a group account set up ? This may be the best solution right now.

@tcitworld tcitworld added this to the 2.0 milestone Jun 5, 2014
@nicosomb nicosomb removed the Question label Jul 30, 2014
@johngilden

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@johngilden johngilden commented Jul 9, 2015

I agree that this would be an absolute killer feature. Imagine a team of people working on a research topic where everyone is just constantly adding new things to their "to-read" list that others might want to take a look at.

@jcharaoui

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@jcharaoui jcharaoui commented Jan 27, 2016

Bookie, a similar piece of software, shares articles by default on its front page, unless a "private" setting is checked when creating the bookmark. Unfortunately, Bookie has pretty much ceased development, so I'd like to migrate to Wallabag and hopefully recover this feature in one form or another. Using a unique public URL to share a complete collection or tag seems to me like a really good compromise.

@nicosomb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@nicosomb nicosomb commented Jan 27, 2016

What is the URL of Bookie?

@tcitworld

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@tcitworld tcitworld commented Jan 27, 2016

@jcharaoui

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@jcharaoui jcharaoui commented Jan 27, 2016

@j0k3r

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@j0k3r j0k3r commented Jan 31, 2016

Might be a good idea. We should put every new entry to private by default and user will have an option to set public by default for all new entry or switch it for one entry.

@Readon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@Readon Readon commented May 3, 2016

This definitely will be a killer feature that fits for group of user who is working together want to share knowledge with their own control. Some web page on internet will be removed permanently after a const time.

If it is possible, set the shared content to a group is better than all of them.

@tcitworld

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@tcitworld tcitworld commented Nov 4, 2016

Related to #2268

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
10 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.