@aral

3.) Your post is not constructive, instead settles somebody else with a lot of work.

The constructive thing would be to write up a new FEP superseding #FEP5624 that specifies an optIn feature. Requirements: It can handle "Can Reply", "Can Boost", "Can Quote", "Can Mention" it does not lead to duplication.

For example "Can Reply/Boost/Quote/Mention with Approval" should not lead to 8 different messages for "accept/decline Reply/Boost/Quote/Men..", but only 2?

#FEP5624 #mastodonoptin

@aral

2.) "please at least make it opt-in." making something optin is hard in a heterogeneous technological system such as the #Fediverse . Basically, doing can be accomplished by a single app, instance, browser add-on, monkey that types for you. So it's a local change.

Whereas optIn requires cooperation of a lot of the fediverse, it's a global change.

#FEP5624 #mastodonoptin

@aral

QTing this post with “haha, look @thisIdiot!” would be a passable contribution to the discussion. Unfortunately, too few people would understand the joke, so let me explain it:

1.) It's not Gargon's decision if and how Qting gets implemented.
1a.) In fact, the if it decided, there is an app that implements exactly the above behavior. Unfortunately, I forgot its name.
1b.) For the how, optin is the most difficult. Discuss on FEP-5624 at https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/fep-5624-per-object-reply-control-policies/2723/12

#FEP5624 #mastodonoptin

@futurebird @vintprox

https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/fep-5624-per-object-reply-control-policies/2723/2

Contains the discussion for canreply.

Of course, this has the problem if being to specific. With this schema, one would get a fep for canboost, and so on.

#mastodonoptin