|
Top-level
@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. 38 comments
 @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 but we use this references to build the thread. So changing it's semantic will change thread structure with all issues we discussed above @BigFoxBoss Every social network deals with note keeping, and note sharing. And they *are* organized, somehow. Could as well be organized differently. > Social networks are disposable by design. I disagree > Try to scroll through someone's garbage meme page to find something useful they said ages ago. That's archive organization issue, not the social network paradigm issue. @BigFoxBoss Because a blog is a type of personal archive - a journal, a diary. We discussed it the other day in the cryptography museum, it was a nice talk. @mittorn Microblog is a type of blog. And Fediverse is not only microblogs, it accomodates all media. (and yes, I'm toying with an idea of making a book based on the entirety of my or whoever else's posts around here) @mittorn By your metric, nothing is, because everything (literally everything) is impermanent, and prone to degradation as time goes on. > Obsidian was made specifically for that purpose. Fedi was not At this point, I'm not interested in "what it was made for" but "what else can it do" or "what else we can do with it". And I see very curious things if you change things up a lil bit. @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: @BigFoxBoss Uhhh... You are not making sense and are putting words in my mouth at this point. @drq @BigFoxBoss @mo you want to introduce tooling that allows flood in almost semi-automate way |
Gregory's Server
@BigFoxBoss
> 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.
@mittorn @mo