Open mediaformat opened 1 month ago
I'd be inclined to say that whilst we can make recommendations regarding trust & safety issues in Quote Posts or Quotes, it is entirely out of scope for this taskforce to define them.
Same goes for reply controls — we can make recommendations to use existing FEPs, but these are outside of what we'd probably be able to specify.
To be clear, I'm not seeking a definition, or even a recommendation at this stage.
Just a discussion of the T&S merits/drawbacks of current and/or proposed implementations.
We'd probably need to revisit this after the Mastodon team have written their Quote Post FEP, since it's covering a lot of trust & safety aspects that existing FEPs don't. All we can really say here is software should implement sufficient controls for actors around whether or not they wish to be quoted, and by whom they can be quoted.
Defining Quote Posts or the pros and cons of different approaches would be out of scope, and for the FEP process and community consensus to align on.
Additionally, as a FEP author, you should be seeking input from Moderators and people with experience in Trust & Safety to ensure that your FEP when implemented doesn't unleash untold harms and has appropriate mitigations in place.
Previous notes on Disambiguating various interpretations of a Quote feature — https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/disambiguating-various-interpretations-of-a-quote-feature-pre-fep/3426 (thanks @trwnh for sharing)
We (the Mastodon team) are working on a general document about quote posts, which includes a lot of T&S considerations.
It is not ready for sharing right now, but we will publish it once ready.
While there are a number of proposals on the mastodon issue queue that deal with this one, as well as some useful discussion on socialhub, I think a discussion here from a trust and safety perspective would be worthwhile.