Read CONTEXT at end of post
Currently Voat’s "Private" subverse feature is primarily used to allow subs to disassociate their posts from v/all, all content is still public in every sense other than this. This isn’t really private, it’s more like a hidden setting.
For internal reasons Voat needs to implement a private subverse feature in which only approved people have access to the subverse content (pro tip: a lot of features we work on and end up offering were/are primarily developed for internal reasons like the upcoming Vote and Packages features).
Before we start any work on this feature, I want to discuss how to develop this feature and get your feedback and concerns.
As I see it, we have the classic concept of Private in which only approved people (members) can access subverse content. The only question is one of implementation: what controls access to subverse: subscriptions or moderator privileges? If we use subscriptions, we will have to modify the process so that moderators can approve a subscription request, otherwise the moderator feature would suffice. If we use a moderator approach, other users can see who is part of the private subverse which is good for transparency. Pros/cons to both approaches.
Some concerns I see:
-
Should we have different "Private" settings like a ReadOnly
differentiation so that a subverse can choose to display content to non-members but not allow non-members to submit posts/comments i.e. a read only approach?
-
What if a subverse is private and a new subscriber is added, should this new member have full access to subverse content or should all content submitted before they were added be inaccessible to them? In other words, only content submitted after a user became a member is visible to them. This concern is to allow existing members to be reassured their prior content is protected.
-
Should private subverse content show up in front-page/sets or should the subverse content only be accessible via navigating to the subverse itself?
-
Should pings be dropped when the target user isn’t a member?
There are probably other considerations I haven’t thought about, so let me know your thoughts.
CONTEXT
As with any change, we are all looking at the potential for abuse (which I see), so I want to give everyone a context of where this comes from so you can see the intentions involved with the thought.
I want to setup a corporate Voat instance for business related concerns that will be accessible by all Voat employees and members of the community that are involved with the operations of Voat (this is called dogfooding in the software world). In this instance I'd like to have a subverse about Finances that is restricted to only company executives, as well as a Legal subverse accessible to legal council, etc.
In these scenarios, private subverses are needed as a Voat developer or community manager wouldn't need access to this "sensitive" content.
I think it's important to note where this idea stems from and that this idea was never one of ill intention (i.e. This is the end of Voat!). This is why I mentioned "internal" above.
As always, we are just getting feedback here, let's try to look for solutions to the concerns rather than throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Edit
Consensus is in: Voat loves this idea... Pause... Pause... Not. ;)
view the rest of the comments →
showbobandvagene ago
I don't know if i like it. What do we stand to gain from these changes?
Seems to me it will breed a lot of fuckery and infighting.
Though, my mind isnt made up yet, im going wait and to check out the comments and see if anyone comes up with some positives that i haven't thought of...
Crensch ago
I'm on the other end, I'd love to see some negatives. Putt would like to implement this oh, and the only complaint I've seen is completely dispelled by the fact that private messages already exist.
Vindicator ago
Here's one negative I can see, and it's the same one as chat rooms: privacy settings create the illusion of security. They are easily infiltrated and the users conversations exposed. The larger Voat gets, the higher the proportion of normies, the greater the risk to all the naive will be.
Direct messages, by their nature, have a limited distribution. While they might be captured and shared by one of the recipients, the sender knows the risk and thinks about it when having to choose the individual recipients. There is a contemplation element that doesn't exist in a private "room", and the longer the privacy of a subverse goes on without infiltration, the more complacent and trusting (and at risk of infiltration) it's members will become.
@PuttitOut
That said, it would be cool to be able to make a private personal sub only the Owner themselves could see for drafts in progress, notes, saved links and so forth. I don't think it would be easy to abuse such a thing.
Crensch ago
Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.
I don't really see that as a downside - you're responsible for your own NetSec, and if you don't understand that, you'll figure it out quickly.
It's not a bad argument like some, I just disagree that we should protect all those normies from themselves.
Vindicator ago
Ah...I guess my point is -- in a private subverse, security is only as good as the weakest link. People in a group behave differently than people communicating one on one...most people, anyway. Especially on a Friday night after a couple of adult beverages.
Crensch ago
I agree; I believe it is up to each individual to keep their own necks out of the proverbial noose. We do what we can as mods and protectors of Voat and PG, but there's only just so much we can really do, and hindering functionality for that reason seems beyond wrong to me.
The more these usernames pop up and argue with me, the better the idea sounds. Just my .02.
Vindicator ago
I know the feeling.
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this v/AnonTalk comment by @16514556.
Posted automatically (#21667) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.