Gregory's Server@drq I suggest you to look at this list https://fedidb.org/software and estimate, how easy it would be to patch everything
|
82 comments
 @drq alternative solution: just link your first reply in second, if you're too scared to mention additional user Like "Already replied here: <link>" Easy? yes  @drq yeah, looks like you got the trick. Keep doing like that :ageblobcat: @mo I don't want to. It makes me angry that there's no proper tooling around this.  1. Polytrees (which is basically what I propose here) are still directed and acyclic, so looping is completely irrelevant here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytree 2. I don't care about technicalities at this point. 3. Some don't but may be some do. I do. But yes, the UI will need to accomodate, somewhat, but I'm sure we can figure something out 4. This is actually a way to *avoid* hellthreads, and avoid parroting the same points all the time. @drq @drq also: your suggestion is not a polytree. Like, on the image from wiki, nothing stops G to be reply to both D and E @mo Nothing stops, but they aren't. Some messages are not replies to some other messages, you know. @drq on the pic — arent. But there could be such thread if multireply is implemented @drq how would you render such a mess if they will? @mittorn Basically, joining two adjacent threads into one down the line. Yes, that's what I want. @BigFoxBoss We already have abilities and opportunities to mention a shitton of people at once, so it's a wash. Also, I already answered to how 3 will work under the hood. @BigFoxBoss By linking to a collective memory of people who already had this conversation. @BigFoxBoss In places where moderation is alive, yes, I expect some decency of people. Where it isn't, well... They can do pretty much whatever. @BigFoxBoss No, I expect the moderation to fend off spammers and trolls who would abuse a feature (any feature). @drq @BigFoxBoss @mo we do not have such amount of moderation. Why add potentially harmful features? Or you want use some AI for moderation like big corps? @mittorn Uh... We're already doing this. I mean, moderate abusers. @drq @mittorn @mo Bringing up a previously discussed topic or getting someone to reiterate a point previously stated is abuse or what? Spammers and feature abusers are an entirely different beast. > Bringing up a previously discussed topic or getting someone to reiterate a point previously stated is abuse or what? No, why? I'm talking about cases as described in: https://masturbated.one/@mittorn/112525266945060081 > Spammers and feature abusers are an entirely different beast. No they aren't. Spammers abuse technology to send spam. @drq @BigFoxBoss @mo this might be useful with premoderation, but not with postmoderation @BigFoxBoss Uhhh... those are separate topics, so... nothing? > Different not from each other, but different from people who may talk about a topic previously discussed or have a point being reiterated by someone Yes, and that's a very clear distinction, the latter are just talking, and the former use automated tools to send as much as possible, what's the question, again? @BigFoxBoss I already told you: by allowing reference. The number of "platinum threads" will be reduced, at least. Yes, threads will be bigger, they will be more long-lived, but there will be fewer of them. @drq @BigFoxBoss @mo so you just need reference tool, not multi-reply @drq @BigFoxBoss @mo you want to introduce tooling that allows flood in almost semi-automate way @mittorn 2. We overhauled protocols in 2017. We can fucking do it again. 3. Up to the implementer, I guess. We can have an option to show additional parents or not, I think. 1. Well, this is not really a loop, is it. The graph still goes in one direction. Rendering is another question entirely, it may be up to the implementer. Maybe someone will actually build a graph view instead of linear feed. Who knows. The options are there, earlier you even suggested a few. 2. Everything breaks eventually. Ostatus broke. So will AP. @drq @mo @BigFoxBoss Yes, we need "secondary link" semantics, not this shit. For me this opens MML in separate tab, very useful. And thankful, that is not some misskey @mittorn What is a "secondary link"? What does it describe? What is its semantics? Is it a reply? Is it an in-reply-to? If it's either, then either field becomes a duplicate and oh shit, here we go again. @drq @mo @BigFoxBoss just "link" entity or attribute, that will scroll thread to specific point or open other thread, not open fucking new browser tab. No, this should not appear in reply. Maybe we need this appear in some separate fields like mentioned: [array] |
@drq ...and patching everything is REQUIRED, because you can't just change types in JSON and don't handle it in the code
@mittorn @BigFoxBoss