This is the single most dangerous corporate web portal I've ever seen
Loading...
they share similarities, but the focus of topics is more about collecting and curating information to share with a broader scope (eg. all subscribed users) - think of it more as a "magazine" with its editorial team, or "channels" (like in several chat applications) but on steroids
Topics are similar to the way a.gup.pe implemented groups on the fediverse. I think of them more like "federated hashtags".
You can include one or multiple topics (using + mentions, which share similarities with both @ mentions or # tagging) is the text of a post, and that post is still published in your timeline and your followers' feeds as usual, and in addition submitted (or published directly, depending on the topic's boundaries) to the topic's timeline and to followers of the topic.
This is different from typical groups where you usually post 'in' just one group at a time, and the group moderators sort-of "own" the post (they can delete it for example, whereas with topics they only control whether the post is shown/shared by the topic). This also does away with cross-posting something in several places, since one canonical post can be shared in multiple places.
In our implementation, you can also add tag something you or somebody else posted (depending on the post's boundaries) at any any time, not only when initially posting.
@mayel @facebook_is_better_than_bonfire testing responses. So are topics like groups?
they share similarities, but the focus of topics is more about collecting and curating information to share with a broader scope (eg. all subscribed users) - think of it more as a "magazine" with its editorial team, or "channels" (like in several chat applications) but on steroids
+facebook_is_better_than_bonfire boundaries and circles are integrated in topics, so you were able to add this sub-topic because the parent topic has open boundaries (public), but you can create topics where only some circles can publish (in which case things they tag end up in the Submitted tab and don't appear in the feeds of topic followers) or create sub-topics, etc
@mayel @facebook_is_better_than_bonfire testing responses. So are topics like groups?
+facebook_is_better_than_bonfire boundaries and circles are integrated in topics, so you were able to add this sub-topic because the parent topic has open boundaries (public), but you can create topics where only some circles can publish (in which case things they tag end up in the Submitted tab and don't appear in the feeds of topic followers) or create sub-topics, etc
If anybody can make a sub-topic, malicious sub-groups will happen very quickly
Probably because, differently from channels, our topics include the possibility to be grouped in a taxonomy tree, so that eg: the "All about veganism" topic can be a children of "nutrition" and parent of "tofu recipes" topics (Nd such taxonomy is also federated, so the tree can span different instances as well once we get it)
Interesting! So it is like usenet newgroups a bit.
I understand "channel" has a one-to-many connotation that you probably want to avoid. But isn't this like "groups" then?
How would the hierarchy be formed?
Opportunity for anyone who may be interested in learning how to program Elixir (the main language in Bonfire): twitter.com/thejuliams/statu...
@mayel Thanks. The site seems to work well. I think the excersises are good. DM me if anyone wants elixir epubs
@dajbelshaw @bonfire @Supernova @Thursday @Dragan_Espenschied
here an attempt of an improved UI for boundaries, the main outcomes are:
- Reduce the permissions list toshow only the relevant ones for each activity type (eg. see / read / like / boost / mention / reply / edit (future one) / delete (future one) ...)
- Default the permissions to be the same for all the users/circles involved
- Let the user expand each verb to customise the permissions for the users involved (fig.3)
- replace the 3 icons that shows the permission states (can / undefined / cannot) with a more standard 3-toggle state
3 media
ah the img previews are displaied in the wrong order, the fig.3 is displaied as the first one (the flow should be from the last image to the first)
@mayel @ivan Love the circles/boundaries stuff! 🤘
Might be my lack of understanding, but I'm assuming that by defining a 'circle' I'm adding a group of people to a list.
This is different to creating a 'boundary' where I'm defining permissions of the people in that list in relation to my posts.
Is that right? At the moment, I feel like the circle/boundary language could be clearer?
@dajbelshaw @bonfire @Supernova @Thursday @Dragan_Espenschied
here an attempt of an improved UI for boundaries, the main outcomes are:
- Reduce the permissions list toshow only the relevant ones for each activity type (eg. see / read / like / boost / mention / reply / edit (future one) / delete (future one) ...)
- Default the permissions to be the same for all the users/circles involved
- Let the user expand each verb to customise the permissions for the users involved (fig.3)
- replace the 3 icons that shows the permission states (can / undefined / cannot) with a more standard 3-toggle state
3 media
Freedom is a heavy load, a great and strange burden for the spirit to undertake. It is not easy. It is not a gift given, but a choice made, and the choice may be a hard one.
@dajbelshaw @bonfire @Supernova interesting, tough creating a circle and assing permissions to them are 2 separated actions (and happens in different times and page)
Your suggestion is to merge them together?
I don't know if they can be merged, it depends on the intended use of boundaries.
Are boundaries only suppose to link to one circle?
SO can I create one boundary that allows all permissions to say circle named "Family"? Can I then create another boundary that is linked again to the same circle "Family", but then give it more restrictive permissions like the post can't be shared? Then if I want to share a post with "Family" I then have the option of allowing or not allowing them to share the post depending on the boundary I choose to use?
I think it makes a big difference that the topic "acts" like a regular "user" account but is stewarded by potentially many users. Why don't you just name this "channels"?
Probably because, differently from channels, our topics include the possibility to be grouped in a taxonomy tree, so that eg: the "All about veganism" topic can be a children of "nutrition" and parent of "tofu recipes" topics (Nd such taxonomy is also federated, so the tree can span different instances as well once we get it)
@Dragan_Espenschied @Tropic_the_Topic it is like a collection of things that belong together, like "channels" where only users with specific permissions can add / moderate stuff.
Being the topic an AP actor, other users can follow and receive notification each time something get published (and automatically re-boosted by the topic)
I think it makes a big difference that the topic "acts" like a regular "user" account but is stewarded by potentially many users. Why don't you just name this "channels"?
@dajbelshaw @bonfire @Supernova @Thursday @ivan I would indeed merge them together. Otherwise you can easily end up with an AWS IAM system oder endless mix-and-match options like the NTFS file system exposes.
i agree, atm we put everything on the table but making hard life for users to actually use boundaries (or whatever they'll be called) - thinking what could be the best way to improve the UX collectively, maybe a series of open design workshop in september?
I have a suggestion for Bonfire:
@BonfireBuilders #bonfire_feedback
It seems strange that the topic view doesn't displays nested comments.
What is a topic, a more "stable" place for discussion and moderation (which would benefit from nesting), a collection of things that belong together (more like tags), or an automated user (as topics are "boosting" posts)??
@Dragan_Espenschied @Tropic_the_Topic it is like a collection of things that belong together, like "channels" where only users with specific permissions can add / moderate stuff.
Being the topic an AP actor, other users can follow and receive notification each time something get published (and automatically re-boosted by the topic)
I have a suggestion for Bonfire:
@BonfireBuilders #bonfire_feedback
The identity that wrote a post shouldn't get notifications about that same post.
@dajbelshaw @bonfire @Supernova @ivan how about using terminology of a campfire? Something like campgrounds for boundary? Users may be more familiar with the naming more than abstract nature of the word boundaries.
Circle I think makes sense. But due to social network nomenclature, maybe group or camp members would work better? If you want individuals to understand what they are using, similar verbs may be necessary for similar concepts. Otherwise, it can produce confusion regardless of the intention for simplicity or clarity.
+bonfire Getting too metaphorical is risky. Personally I never go camping, and have no idea what campgrounds are.
I agree boundaries is not an ideal term, but not because it is abstract, it just doen't fit 100%. Bounded posts are not changing their shape, or growing or shrinking in size. They have certain rules about who can see and interact with them. It is like every post can be its own little forum. My suggestion would be rules or access.
