!Friendica Support a question concerning circles and mentions: Imagine you create a non public post to a circle, your followers or a dedicated list of people. Now you mention someone in the post who is not part of that. Should the person receive the post or not?
Currently we don't transmit the post to that person. But there could be situations where you deliberately want to include a person in the discussion who is not part of your circles and cannot be added.
What do you think?
Schmaker likes this.
Schmaker
in reply to Michael 🇺🇦 • •I'd say there should be two ways of tagging:
Mentioning: Person gets tagged and not notified
Tagging: Message directly ment to be addressed to tagged person
I have got few times into situation I would like to mention someone in public post without actually wanting him to be notified - just to redirect audience to his profile (journalist or similar accounts).
If there only will be one option, then I'd say when tagged in private conversation, the tagged person should be notified
Michelangela 🏴☠️ likes this.
Friendica Support reshared this.
bitpickup
in reply to Schmaker • • •@Schmaker
Isn't the following workaround good enough?
(Or actually what you want to achive)
@schmaker@schmaker.euposting the handle as code, a simple copyPaste creates your intent.Maybe some bbCode could solve this request?
By using it, a click on the shown handle link, the profile is automatically searched within your instance and the profile page is opened in a new TAB.
🤔
@Michael 🇺🇦
Schmaker
in reply to bitpickup • •@bitpickup
That's solution that does not respect federation, even though it would work as a workaround.
IMHO handle should handle the profile within it's instance (either viewer's or profile's). But someone may have different opinion.
@Michael 🇺🇦
Friendica Support reshared this.
bitpickup
in reply to Schmaker • • •@Schmaker
Can you elaborate?
@Michael 🇺🇦
Schmaker
in reply to bitpickup • •If you open it on different instance, it will always point viewer to mine (I may be wrong at this, but doubt so)
@Michael 🇺🇦
Friendica Support reshared this.
jeSuisatire neindochohh ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ
in reply to Schmaker • • •You have the follow option in the profile card of that distant server you are not logged onto don't you?
@heluecht @bitpickup
Friendica Support reshared this.
utopiArte
in reply to jeSuisatire neindochohh ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ • • •@jeSuisatire neindochohh ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ
True
Actually a better link would be the/remote_followpage of the profile: @Schmaker that's where you get directed to by the follow button.image of Schmaker's Webfinger request page
@Michael 🇺🇦 @bitpickup @Schmaker
Schmaker
in reply to utopiArte • •For example - I'd expect the visitor from mamutovo.cz to be directed to this page instead of my server.
That's why i think mention and linking should be different thing. Even though I like the workaround mentioned with remote-follow page.
Friendica Support reshared this.
bitpickup
in reply to Schmaker • • •truth is, if we have to visite the remote-follow page, we leave IP traces on a distant instance with out need, don't we?
@utopiArte @Michael 🇺🇦 @jeSuisatire neindochohh ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ
Schmaker likes this.
jesuiSatire
in reply to utopiArte • • •Utopiarte napsal/a:
What a classical newBee answer, who was that?
No we don't, nothing changed everything is fine.
It's the friendica icon link in the right upper corner of every post or answer:
Images of an intent to visite a anonsys profile
requeteChe
in reply to jesuiSatire • — (-34.9238107 -56.1587422) • •ALTtext comment jesuiSatire napsal/a:
As the disclaimer in the page states:
> The top-level post isn't visible.
(wer lesen kann ist klar im Vorteil, newBee)
The link was in an answer of a post to a friendica Circle that only contains friendicans created by @utopiArte called scriptedCircle @jesuiSatire.
btw
Another option utopiArte, the main option to visite a distant profile, is using the profile page of the contact. The avatar, number 9 in the image, redirects to the profile page on it's home server.
Image of a profile page and the options in it
@Michael 🇺🇦 @Schmaker @bitpickup @jeSuisatire neindochohh ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ
Dominik Grothaus
in reply to Schmaker • • •@Schmaker
I'm with @Schmaker here. I would not expect someone outside the target circle/contacts to receive a notification. Actually, the way Slack does this is almost my expected behaviour. When you mention/tag someone inside a restricted channel, you are asked if you want to invite that contact to the closed group. If you do so, they are notified. If you don't add them to the restricted channel, they are not notified but the contacts in the channel have direct access to the profile due to mentioning.
@Michael 🇺🇦 @Friendica Support
Schmaker likes this.
Jools
in reply to Michael 🇺🇦 • • •Montag
in reply to Michael 🇺🇦 • • •Schmaker likes this.
utopiArte
in reply to Michael 🇺🇦 • • •@Michael 🇺🇦
I think I'll leave a inicail comment to think about this, let the content think in and settle while mentioning that I love the fact how mastodon expands and contracts seamlessly conversations.
In fact the related profiles over here create continuously in's and out's, including endless confusion, nobody even realizes on the side of mastodon as they mainly surf from snippet to snippet while over here the thread never looses the over all context.
The greatest setting of all was back than on mastodon when you could add people into a conversation by editing an already published and federated restricted toot adding their handle.
That was like:
"Let's evolve a private conversation about XYZ, make every body riff off, and than add XYZ to burn the place to the ground!"
We'll, probably only a funny side kick for foolish kidd's like @jesuisatire@social.tchns.de, kinda nobody expects ..
jeSuisatire neindochohh ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ
in reply to utopiArte • • •> .. foolish kid's like @jesuisatire@social.tchns.de, kinda nobody expects ..
No mention over here @utopiarte.
🤷
Maybe because your answer isn't publicly visible on the helpers forum page?
🤔
Adding some general content on the topic, for the brainstorm ..
Right now, by interaction with mastodon profiles different circumstances are created that might not be in the playbook.
I found the image I'll add somewhere on the web, in it there is one delicate detail in the federation with mastodon mentioned.
At least until friendica 2023.12 it was possible for mastodon accounts to expand and change the recipients. In any case I would need to dig into old post to look those tests up.
.. the worst part of censorship is ..
@heluecht
jeSuisatire neindochohh ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ
in reply to jeSuisatire neindochohh ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ • • •Than there is the detail that apparently popped up when a mastodon profile went private in a public post to a forum page. That private mention was publicly visible, at least in the forum page itself. Maybe even federated to contacts and other servers related to that forum page.
Difficult to say, yet not really off topic as there is in general the issue of what we intent to do, and the expected and unexpected results.
Most likely there come up some serious issues, discussions and decisions the friendican mindset actually is not interested in executing, as general federation with activitypub platforms is involved.
@heluecht
jeSuisatire neindochohh ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ
in reply to jeSuisatire neindochohh ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ • • •> Than there is the detail that apparently popped up when a mastodon profile went private in a public post to a forum page. That private mention was publicly visible, at least in the forum page itself. Maybe even federated to contacts and other servers related to that forum page.
Found a related post, this is a screen to leave a note and become eventually able to trace this.
@heluecht
jeSuisatire neindochohh ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ
in reply to jeSuisatire neindochohh ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ • • •> Maybe because your answer isn't publicly visible on the helpers forum page?
Sry my fault, a tired mind didn't get the whole message:
"The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please log in."
Looks like that sentence refers to the spanisch inqui sition @utopiarte.
Actually not sure about the notificatio of the mention itself anymore. Apperntly your reply is three days old.
@heluecht
jeSuisatire neindochohh ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ
in reply to jeSuisatire neindochohh ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ • • •\\ offTopic
Personal note to get a better grip on the differences and handling off the platforms.
My post above states the following on forum.friendi.ca:
> The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.
In the case of the friendica profile @utopiarte the server explains:
"To view it, please log in."
.. details, lot's of details ..
bitpickup
in reply to utopiArte • • •The spoiler edited answer above with the diabolc laughter never made it to over here [2026-01].
(till now)
@Michael 🇺🇦
Matthias
in reply to Michael 🇺🇦 • • •@Michael 🇺🇦
If a person who is not part of a circle is mentioned in that circle, then in my opinion it is necessary to also send the post to that person. A circle should not be used to talk about a person.
In my view, another challenge falls into the same category:
When a post is sent to a circle, all persons who have been added to the circle by the sender can respond. However, this group may not correspond to the persons I follow. If such a person comments on the post, I cannot see their comment. The thread is illegible.
It would be great if all comments were distributed, regardless of whether I follow that person.
Michael 🇺🇦
in reply to Matthias • • •bitpickup
in reply to Matthias • • •@Matthias
I agree, even tho it's quite easy to consider that
@feb@loma.mlis talking and mentioning openly in a restricted post about a profile too.I totally agree, and actually it's quite often very disturbing to see disrupted conversation where you see kinda answers to a ghost. I consider that should be avoided as much as possible and most likely solved in any case by blocking features and options.
A post to a circle is more like an invitation to a party. There will always be people you don't know yet, they actually are a chance to know people you don't know yet, and there are people you don't want to talk to anymore, so you block them, by not getting near by or leave when ever interaction might occure.
This is most likely the most profound and important topic of all, and at least my experience with considering such things is:
Letting it sink in, sleep over it, discuss it again.
.. sleep over it ..
In the case of a party, I'd probably ask the owner:
"Hey,
there is this dude in town, can I invite him to come over, he likes the music and the kind of people right here and now."
Could be some kind of invitation request, that, approved by the owner of the post string sends out an "invitation". That can obviously only apply to "from this moment forward" like in element\matrix when encryption of a channel is activated.
(or something like that, there is a message somewhere in one of my channels that states something in that direction)
Maybe some kind of new post inside an existing post that adds the new member and sends some standard note to everyone:
"By request of @utopiArte and approval of @Michael 🇺🇦 @mʕ•ﻌ•ʔm bitPickup has joined the room."
If
@bitpickup@troet.cafeonly can see and interact with activities from there and the conversations before aren't visible for him, that sounds as fair as it can get.If it's handled by kinda sections, from that point downward the newbee can interact. In the section before, even if there are new comments he can't see or interact.
The other criteria would be timestamp. He see's everything from the moment of the approval no matter where in the thread. If it's an answer to an answer when he still wasn't invited, he get's a:
"Answer to inaccessible previous comment"
In any case comments can become more plausible to the newbee by
Mathias napsal/a:
(in my opinion right now)
bitpickup
in reply to bitpickup • • •Eventuell unlogische Schnapsidee
How about joined circles
A tool or system that some how compares circles of profiles that agree specifically to give permission to such an Abgleich and create one shared circle. From there newbees would have to be admitted by those who share that circle. A "leave me out of this" message for profiles in that circle should probably exist as well.
Or maybe that's just what a forum page actually is?
@utopiArte @Michael 🇺🇦 @mʕ•ﻌ•ʔm bitPickup @Matthias
requeteChe
in reply to bitpickup • • •bitpickup napsal/a:
scriptedTalesClub circle created in this profile, containing 8 contacts.
@Michael 🇺🇦 @Matthias
CC:
@bitpickup @jesuiSatire @…ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ jesuisatire bitPickup @Script Kiddie @utopiArte
@mʕ•ﻌ•ʔm bitPickup
@.. ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ bitPickup mʕ•ﻌ•ʔm @mʕ•ﻌ•ʔm jesuiSatire .. ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ
bitpickup
in reply to requeteChe • • •scriptedTalesClub circle created in this profile, containing 8 contacts.
All relalationships are mutual (friends).
The following contacts are as well in the circle @requeteChe published:
@…ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ jesuisatire bitPickup @jesuiSatire
@mʕ•ﻌ•ʔm bitPickup
@mʕ•ﻌ•ʔm jesuiSatire .. ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ @.. ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ bitPickup mʕ•ﻌ•ʔm
CC:
@Michael 🇺🇦 @Matthias
utopiArte
in reply to requeteChe • • •requeteChe napsal/a:
The same profiles exist in the contact list of this profile @requeteChe on this instance [2024.12].
Just created their for the same circle scriptedTalesClub with the same members.
@Script Kiddie @bitpickup @jesuiSatire @…ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ jesuisatire bitPickup
@mʕ•ﻌ•ʔm bitPickup
@.. ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ bitPickup mʕ•ﻌ•ʔm @mʕ•ﻌ•ʔm jesuiSatire .. ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ
CC:
@Matthias @Michael 🇺🇦
utopiArte
in reply to Michael 🇺🇦 • • •Coming back to the initial question:
The contacts have no say in being in a circle or not.
In the case of circles they aren't even aware who is in it and who is not.
If someone is added, in the case of mastodon, that add is for that specific answer, and eventually successive answers each and every time the handle is added, their for in plain sight. That's way more apparent, fair and open source than circles.
friendicans can see what circle names are mentioned, mastodonians can't.
(If we could find a workaround for them to at least be aware of what circles are involved that would be important and fair.)
When mastodonians switch from
public,quiet publicorfollowersto@ privateand a friendican answers, the answer is recieved by mastodon asfollowerswhen it should probably bePM.When they answer, by default their answer becomes
followersand there for goes to all of their contacts, not even a specific circle.That's as hitchikers guide as it can get.
A party is one thing, but considering that friendica could and should be even an option for companies, more kinda linkedin, these kind of programed errors for DAU's are funny but .. well.
In the case of a company instead of a party I guess I'd prefer the "from this point on in the conversation" instead of a timestamp ruled one.
Imagine a higher level of executives discuss an issue, than take in lower levels for consulting specifics or passing on results from the early conversations. You would want to go on to talk in the early strings adding results from conversations of the later on added pool of people.
Like to say:
Management circle discusses, adds development circle in secondary string and discusses, creates second secondary string with sales forces and discusses in parallel to than create third string where all three circles participate.
Shouldn't we draw a line between circles within friendica, or platforms that handle activityPub as friendica does, and circles that are mixed?
I like the idea to find a real solution of sharing list's of contacts without really exposing the details in the front end. That includes the option maximum or minimum of contacts. Kinda ven-diagram.
All people in the football circle of A, B and C and only those who are present in all circles of A, B and C.
The capability of sharing and relating lists actually could be useful for sharing blocklists in between servers or profiles. The problem in any case is that that might be more of a theoretical technical challenge to be fulfilled out of pride that in no time will end in everyone being blocked by everyone without knowing even why.
There are things we probably need to leave to tedious human interaction, Soziologen for sure would agree.
🤷
@Michael 🇺🇦
bitpickup
in reply to utopiArte • • •The summed up spoiler edition didn't make it to ver here [2026.01].
@Michael 🇺🇦
bitpickup
Unknown parent • • •screenShot of how the mastodonian "@" privat post looks over here
@mʕ•ﻌ•ʔm bitPickup @requeteChe @utopiArte @Michael 🇺🇦 @jesuiSatire @Matthias @…ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ jesuisatire bitPickup @Script Kiddie
@Raroun
offTopic
In a post in the recent past you mentioned a dedicated overhaul of the image upload concept, ALTtext and so on. Could it be possible to create some pathway that the introduced ALTtext when uploading or dragDroping directly into a comment window on desktop, is automatically added to the newly created image in the gallery?Also, if that is not possible, or even than too, could there be a card like the "go to new post" card that exists now but [GoToImageGallery] so at least in a few steps the created ALTtext can be added from the clipBoard content list?
🤔