@Gargron boosts can be private? I thought they just happened and the visibility of the account itself was the key element of whether it is seen or not.
@Keltounet At the moment they can't be private. But in terms of database design, since they are the same as normal toots, they can also be private like normal toots. My suggested change would add a corresponding visibility param to the API, but since I do not intent to add UI controls for that param (choosing visibility for each boost? Nah) it would rely on the default that I bring up in the poll.
@Gargron then I think we need to be consistent and will vote that way :)
@Gargron yes i like that
what about just making private boosts called 'poosts' with the arrows around each other symbol but with a little crossed-out eye, and making regular boosts have the symbol but with an open eye, and then
(this is a trashpost, FTR I'm not personally into changing boost visibility that way because at this point people kinda know what boosts do and changing it would be pretty fundamental)
@Gargron yes, good idea
@foxhkron That's the OStatus fallback
@Gargron seems à good idea
@Gargron how would the UX for making public boosts work?
@er1n That's the catch, I don't really see myself adding UX for that
@Gargron It wouldn't be possible at all to make public boosts if the account is locked?
@kuro At least not from the web UI
@Gargron It looks like a very weird behavior (or maybe I totally misunderstood the thing). The point of locking is, for me, to filter who can follow me. I don't understand why it should be related to the ability to boost things publicly or not.
@Gargamel I'm not sure tying it to the locked account setting is a good idea.
I have a locked account but I mostly post publicly, and I want the same out of boosts.
@Thib How about a chain of defaults? If default posting preference is set, use that, otherwise, base it on account lock?
@Gargamel that does sound better to me. We must make sure it's understandable though.
@Gargamel makes me think this could be yet another option. On that topic, I have been suggested to make “privacy presets” such as a completely locked-down profile, or a completely open one, at least matching the expectations people might have from Twitter
Why? I mean a change in feature with no incentive explained ? Call me brainless but I don't get it
@Gargron as long as there's a toggle to change it. usage of locking is widely variable - i just use it to approve followers on this account, but i still do a lot of unlocked toots. so i want to be able to do public boosts
@Gargron No, not without being able to control such visibility. Accounts requiring follower approval is a entirely separate matter to post/boost visibility, and would force a choice between being able to approve followers and being able to usefully boost - I'd find that highly unwelcome.
They're two separate things, and shouldn't be linked.
@Gargron It makes more sense and feels most correct so sure.
@Gargron maybe add ‘make boosts private’ as an option in settings? There’s plenty of people with public accts who mostly post flocked and vice versa
Invite-only Mastodon server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!