# I am the Watcher. I am your guide through this vast new twtiverse.
#
# Usage:
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/users View list of users and latest twt date.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/twt View all twts.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/mentions?uri=:uri View all mentions for uri.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/conv/:hash View all twts for a conversation subject.
#
# Options:
# uri Filter to show a specific users twts.
# offset Start index for quey.
# limit Count of items to return (going back in time).
#
# twt range = 1 18
# self = https://watcher.sour.is/conv/5ne755a
@tkanos This is essentially allowing for Nazi pods, because that is one of the first cohorts that will come here once it's adopted by enough people. That's what has been happening with Mastodon. I think we can do better.
@abucci In real terms though won't that just be a rogue network of pods distinct and different but running the same (or modified) software? π€ This is a hard problem to solve, because it a "human problem". My view has always been that, if you believe in that kind of stuff, and like to be with other abusive groups of people, fine. But be on your own, and in the open. In other words, do we care? We would just not peer with pods like that or follow feeds from such folks? Right? π€ Being a decentralised network the power is in your hands, however the original Yarn is really about how we deal with abuse on our pods...
Hmmm π€ I _really_ do feel like we've opened a can of worms here π
@abucci In real terms though won't that just be a rogue network of pods distinct and different but running the same (or modified) software? π€ This is a hard problem to solve, because it a "human problem". My view has always been that, if you believe in that kind of stuff, and like to be with other abusive groups of people, fine. But be on your own, and in the open. In other words, do we care? We would just not peer with pods like that or follow feeds from such folks? Right? π€ Being a decentralised network the power is in your hands, however the original Yarn is really about how we deal with abuse on our pods...
Hmmm π€ I _really_ do feel like we've opened a can of worms here π
@prologic Yes, it's definitely a can of worms and it sucks that there are people out there who make it so.
You're right that there can't be effective centralized control of all pods. Besides defeating the purpose of decentralized networking it doesn't work.
I do think, though, that yarn pods could be built to sort of nudge things in a nicer direction.
I wonder. Imagine if a pod operator decides a twt should be deleted, then this set off delete calls for that twt to all peered pods, which in turn propagate delete calls. Sort of like how adding a post works. However, the pod operator has the option to either let these go through automatically, or to turn that setting off and dexode manually whether to delete.
@abucci
> Imagine if a pod operator decides a twt should be deleted, then this set off delete calls for that twt to all peered pods, which in turn propagate delete calls.
Fine, as long as the post is on *his own pod*. I don't think we need any kind of moderation on Pod A by the admin of Pod B. If a function like that is going to exist, it should at least be opt-in.
I _actually_ wonder whether we're over thinking things a bit here entirely...
We already have several user controls:
- Unfollow a feed
- Mute a feed
- Mute a twt
And the pod operator of a multi-user pod can:
- Delete a feed
- Delete an account
- Shadow ban a feed
Because pods are sort of "distributed" I _really_ wonder whether we need to be all that concerned with deleting archived twts across the network at all? π€ It opens up a huge can of worms that _might_ be rather tricky to solve "right now"...
I _honestly_ think the best way to handle this as we grow/scale with more pods in the Yarn.social network is to just build up a strong positive community and just have a "zero tolerance" attitude towards abuse and just nuke offending feeds/accounts without question.
Hmmm? π€ As long as the software yarnd makes it easy for those (hopefully rare) abusive users to move their feeds elsewhere and take their data with them, maybe this is enough? π€
I dunno π€·ββοΈ
I _actually_ wonder whether we're over thinking things a bit here entirely...
We already have several user controls:
- Unfollow a feed
- Mute a feed
- Mute a twt
And the pod operator of a multi-user pod can:
- Delete a feed
- Delete an account
- Shadow ban a feed
Because pods are sort of "distributed" I _really_ wonder whether we need to be all that concerned with deleting archived twts across the network at all? π€ It opens up a huge can of worms that _might_ be rather tricky to solve "right now"...
I _honestly_ think the best way to handle this as we grow/scale with more pods in the Yarn.social network is to just build up a strong positive community and just have a "zero tolerance" attitude towards abuse and just nuke offending feeds/accounts without question.
Hmmm? π€ As long as the software yarnd makes it easy for those (hopefully rare) abusive users to move their feeds elsewhere and take their data with them, maybe this is enough? π€
I dunno π€·ββοΈ
@mckinley Yes, for sure. it should be at pod operator discretion. I don't think there should be a forced centralized control mechanism. I was just musing about what might thread the needle.
@prologic this sounds to me like the current moderation scheme for Mastodon. I guess it's good enough for now.
Indeed I'd like to know the philosophical difference between Mastodon and Yarn, since I think these are main competitors in a similar but not exactly equal space.
With those ideas and values, defining a 'fair' moderation scheme is easier IMO.
@prologic
> I honestly think the best way to handle this as we grow/scale with more pods in the Yarn.social network is to just build up a strong positive community and just have a βzero toleranceβ attitude towards abuse and just nuke offending feeds/accounts without question.
I personally disagree with this moderation policy, but it's your right to enforce your rules as you see fit.
Perhaps there should be some kind of grace period, where anyone can download the contents of a "deleted" feed for *n* days before it gets removed entirely. That way, the user has the opportunity to download his feed and move it somewhere else.
@eaplmx Some of the main ideas and philosophy are documented here some of the mechanisms above like muting a feed and/or twt (or an entire yarn) had to be built to satisfy "content policies" for the mobile app for the APp and Play stores. That is to say, controls needed to exists for users to control what content they could or could not see. Apparently wasn't enough to just unfollow a user/feed. π€¦ββοΈ -- Which I guess is fair enough as the same content could be visible to that user on the Discover view. But of course if you logout and use a pod's web interface anonymously, we have no idea who you are, so all bets are off π
Honestly the whole "content" policy guidelines of both App and Play stores are just kind of silly and super pointless to me, and don't really make a terrible lot of sense in a "decentralised" world.
@eaplmx Some of the main ideas and philosophy are documented here some of the mechanisms above like muting a feed and/or twt (or an entire yarn) had to be built to satisfy "content policies" for the mobile app for the APp and Play stores. That is to say, controls needed to exists for users to control what content they could or could not see. Apparently wasn't enough to just unfollow a user/feed. π€¦ββοΈ -- Which I guess is fair enough as the same content could be visible to that user on the Discover view. But of course if you logout and use a pod's web interface anonymously, we have no idea who you are, so all bets are off π
Honestly the whole "content" policy guidelines of both App and Play stores are just kind of silly and super pointless to me, and don't really make a terrible lot of sense in a "decentralised" world.
@prologic Right, I forgot of that page
I'll remark the following:
> Keep it as simple as possible
> Do not compromise on data security and user privacy
> Software should be lightweight
> Self hosted software is preferable over cloud services or SaaS
> Ship early, Ship often
I'd stay with Keep it as simple as possible, but not more than that. And Lightweight.
I have worked on apps rejected by App Store due to lack of moderating features. I'm aware it's tricky. I think the decentralized part could be managed like with Feed readers.
@eaplmx Yeah the question is what does that mean in this discussion π
-- Also its not that we had to build moderation features to satisfy the App/Play stores for the Mobile Ap (Goryon), it was mostly really just misunderstanding. Most of the folks that go through the app submission approval process don't even understand their own guidelines. At some point we had to rename buttons to different labels just to get it approved, even though the functionality was the same. There are no "moderation" features at all and hopefully we can keep things that way.
@eaplmx Yeah the question is what does that mean in this discussion π
-- Also its not that we had to build moderation features to satisfy the App/Play stores for the Mobile Ap (Goryon), it was mostly really just misunderstanding. Most of the folks that go through the app submission approval process don't even understand their own guidelines. At some point we had to rename buttons to different labels just to get it approved, even though the functionality was the same. There are no "moderation" features at all and hopefully we can keep things that way.
@prologic Yeah, sorry, I was throwing random ideas on your previous conversation.
I'll follow on what you all decide, to be in the loop, and we could talk later on how it would impact future versions of the mobile app.
@eaplmx To be honest I _think_ the Mobile App will be unaffected by any changes we make here as its basically a client to the Yarn API π
@eaplmx To be honest I _think_ the Mobile App will be unaffected by any changes we make here as its basically a client to the Yarn API π