z428

@[email protected]

Through all windows I only see ♾.
Grumpy greybeard. Anachronistic and impulsive. I'm here for whatever.
Collecting: Images, random thoughts, tech for humans, sometimes work.
You're most likely welcome here.
Est'd 1977.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

z428, to random

or maybe more general crowd: Given some communication over here recently, I wonder whether it's possible to compose posts that are visible to followers only but for which each of my follower is able to see each response and able to interact with each other person responding there no matter whether these people follow each other too?

z428,

@hoergen Forum / group seems similar but unrelated; in this case, don't I need everyone I would like to address to be in that group / on that forum then?

z428,

@hoergen Hmmm, I don't see the problem here to be honest. I don't want to explicitely add people to a particular group or forum. I just actually would like to be able to send out posts avoiding they're visible to everyone globally, either by looking at some "explore" timeline or by knowing a link to a post. I'd like to make a restriction that limits posts to be available to people I follow (or maybe mutuals of mine) without enforcing that these people necessarily have to follow each other too to reach each others posts. The latter might be perfectly valid but it seems a different use case at least to me.

z428,

@hypolite Ah dang, all along the lines I was kind of afraid it would boil down to something like that. 😔
@hoergen

z428,

@hoergen Hmmm, maybe I'm all off here, but ... this somehow feels like a problem that has been solved in the past, and be that as simple as in e-mail: Sending messages to a wide load of recipients with all of them in Cc (because I want to discuss issues with all of them), anyone who responds to any of these messages will send this response to all of the original recipients, and that is intentionally and expected to be this way. If someone modifies the set of recipients - fine, of course everyone's able and allowed to do that, that's a conscious decision, but it's not, like "no matter what - your response will only be seen by those people in that recipient list that have you in their address book"... . Maybe this analogy is a bit difficult, but at least that's a kind of behaviour that, for an addressing as generic as "Following", would somehow be not all too much off.

Ulrich, to random German
@Ulrich@kirche.social avatar

@pna Mal so aus akademischen Interesse. Du hast auch einen @pna Account und auf troet.cafe. Auf literatur.social gibt es auch einen? Das wäre dann schon verwirrend. Ist im ja aber möglich.

z428,

@pna Kommt darauf an, was Du willst und meinst. Man kann von Friendica aus Deine Posts lesen und darauf antworten - und umgekehrt. Das geht recht gut. Weiß aber nicht, ob das ist, was Du suchst.
@Ulrich @pna

z428,

@pna Dann sollte der eine Account reichen. Friendica kann halt bedeutend mehr, wenn man das will.
@Ulrich

z428, to random German

Serious question, no offense or provocation intended: With this stuff being baked into Hubzilla and, apparently, also design-wise into Bluesky / AT, can anyone out here involved with the specification process outline why nomadic / easily portable identity isn't built-in here by design? Looking at the (to-be-expected) dynamics of instances going up and down, blocking each other or moving to newer, different pieces of software, this seems an absolutely obvious requirement, so I wonder why this has been left out of the standard / spec?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • KamenRider
  • Ask_kbincafe
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • KbinCafe
  • Socialism
  • oklahoma
  • SuperSentai
  • feritale
  • All magazines
    •