Om namah shivaya 🙏
Loading...
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 @ivan this is really quite brilliant. I've never even thought of doing these sorts of solutions before. kudos!
I've identified 4 kinds of social media users:
- advertisers,
- students and mums keeping in touch with (family) friends,
- entrepreneurs, bloggers, artists, and so on, trying to promote their "brand", and
- outcasts, looking for psychotherapeutic listening (deep, non-judgemental)
Microblogging was a bad idea not only in its usual "Twitter" user farming-inspired implementations but also because as the concept it is, it intrinsically conflates the last three use cases. However I'd like to suggest as well that social media can be genuinely good because they isolate people in small clusters, and this helps them to keep in touch with their relatives. Of course it's pretty bad for sharing online resources to a large number of people, this is why we've got blogs and Gemini, RSS/atom feeds, and links.
+Tropic_the_Topic
Trying to imagine a better way to navigate the #topic page and its contents.
The Topic page should ease the way of discovering / read about its main subject and navigate through sub topics.
Much improvements and neat features can be added, I tried to keep it simple to start the discussion.
Hi! 👀
hello 😊 👋
😊 Certes nous pouvons influer à notre petite échelle individuelle sur le changement climatique en cours, mais … 🥵
J'entends bien, mais qui achète ce pétrole (et surtout, qui pourrait s'en passer, qui ne peut pas et pourquoi) ?
This is the single most dangerous corporate web portal I've ever seen
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?
