Gregory's Server@drq @mo @BigFoxBoss no, multireply is shit and we already described why:
1. This makes loop issuse and solving it we break connections between posts
2. This will break existing clients even if allowed by AP/AS, because it was ported to json-ld not best way. Ideally, all implementations should handle all fields as array if it is array or array of one element if it's single element. Same semantics everywhere. But existing json libs not developed for such usage.
3. This is bad UX. User do not want BIIIG complex graphs.
4. This makes new ways to break threads and ddos servers just by connecting hellthreads to small threads and connecing big helltheads to single one.
|
Top-level
 69 comments
 @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 @mittorn Allowing reference as reply, gosh darn it. Do I have to reiterate everything in every post? @drq @BigFoxBoss @mo you asked for multiple entities in replyTo, not references and said that you do not want references (i do not want to search this post in so big thread now) @drq @BigFoxBoss @mo but it is not just a reference, but graph connection. And you asked to use not just single-root directional tree, so you wanted to change main graph @mittorn How is it "not just a reference"? It points to a previous point in conversation, semantically linking it with the current one. Which is almost textbook definition of a reference. @drq @BigFoxBoss @mo it is not just a reference, it is point by which user finds the thread and gets notifications and replies @drq @BigFoxBoss @mo nobody will read big threads. Maybe, 2-3 doomscrollers, but anyway it is very few @drq @mittorn @mo I also told you if basic FAQ doesn't alleviate support centers from silly questions and squabble, then this feature is unlikely to prevent further dramas. @BigFoxBoss Well, if someone is being irrational to the point of being annoying, that's what's moderation for. @BigFoxBoss I would ban anybody being sufficiently annoying and abusive, no matter how they do it. @drq @mittorn @mo "This user made me reiterate, 'cuz they "didn;'t read the platinum thread"/"asked me many times making me repeat", therefore they are annoying to me -> ban!" Since when ending up reiterating a point is considered abuse? :ablobfoxhyperowo: @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. |
@mittorn
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.
@mo @BigFoxBoss