Follow

Is it okay if we change the default visibility of boosts to private when your account is locked, just like the default visibility of toots is private under that condition?

@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 :)

Thanks.

@Gargron @Keltounet

You could add the control for people who have the "confirm boost" popup though

@Nocta
I feel like that should be an instance to instance decision. Like, a decision for the community in general.

I'd be okay for this community to have that option but there may be others that want it to implicitly hide or show boosts.
@Gargron @Keltounet

@Gargron @Keltounet

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 [x] Yes

I can't vote yet! Waiting for a new #Mastodon release with #polls :mastodon:

@baerd
Well wouldn't it be more relevant if one could simply boost, privately, private toot then ?
@Gargron

@freyja_wildes nope i would like to boost, privately, public toots from others

Actually, @Gargron, it would be nice if we could chose between public /private boost as we can for toot.

@baerd
Ok. I have to admit that boosting privately something that is public in the first place makes no sense to me.
It seems to me you want to affect to visibility of someone else's content. If they decided it's public, then does it really affect you that it's publicly boosted ?

1/

@Gargron

@baerd
I'm trying not to get personal. But here it is: I post public selfies, If someone boosts, I hope the audience will be larger. If the boost is private when I posted publicly, then I lose part of an audience I am willing and consenting to address

2/2

@Gargron

@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?

@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

@Gargron

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 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

Sign in to participate in the conversation
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!