Replying with higher visibility than the original toot (e.g., replying with a public toot to a private one) should

@thib I chose the last option, but here a more elaborate answer: Generally I don't think we should have that possibility, at least for people replying to us.
In particular for direct messages, I think that at least there should be a warning as it's easy to miss-click and publish potentially sensitive information.

But I see a few use case where it will be a good possibility imho:
- asking a question publicly, following a thread with private (followers-only/DM) toots. This way our followers could follow the whole discussion.
- replying to a thread with a content that is worth sharing, even if readers won't have the rest of the thread.

@Lapineige yeah, I think we at least need warnings, but some people suggested disallowing that entirely, and I was thinking about my own usage… I do sometimes widen the scope, but I don't think I ever do that when directly replying to someone else.

@Thib @Lapineige in what ways is the visibility of the previous, more private messages impacted?

@rra I'd say it depends on the content. Sometimes the reply might contains sensitive information about the conversation/people involved/person replying/…

@thib well I'm curious to know what others do, but at almost never saw someone using an higher visibility on purpose. I did it sometimes, but not very often.
And it's possible to "link" a private thread to a public toot with a simple toot containing the link… so it's not a big deal.

@Lapineige linking a private toot doesn't work very well for people not on the target's instance (because of stupid technical reasons)

@thib I meant linking a public toot at the end of a private thread (for the use case: I'm talking privately, and here is the question I'm asking publicly, if you my followers want to know the answer).

@themystery I don't know, I do not use them. I don't think Twitter has more granular privacy than “everybody can see this” and “only followers can see this”, account-wide, so I think Twitter does nothing, and replies from non-private accounts are always visible to everyone

@Thib be impossible, as it should silently (or with a warning) de-escalate the scope of the reply to match

@tobypinder sometimes I do widen the scope of my self-replies (e.g. a thread that originates as followers-only and then later posts become relevant to other people)
but I admit it's not that frequent, and I don't think I ever did that for anything else than self-replies

@Thib I hope you're adding together that split "impossible" vote as a point of guidance

@Thib the easy way I solved this problem in #Smithereen: there's only one kind of visibility, public. Anything that isn't public that arrives from other instances is rejected with 400 Bad Request.

@grishka well, that really doesn't fit the uses cases of most Mastodon users…

@Thib nearly clicked on "impossible" until i remembered i'd just posted a thread last night that went public -> public -> unlisted -> public

@Thib I voted display a warning, but I would be fine with impossible or impossible except for self-replies because I can't remember a time I did it. And except for the case in which in you're in your own thread (because you could self-reply in someone else's), I can see potential for abuse (trying to make a conversation more public without the other side noticing)

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon (instance perso)

This is a small personal instance running on a couple small ARM servers at home.