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 →
dontforgetaboutevil ago
Sounds like a great way to deplatform problem subs exactly the way Reddit does. Sub causing problems for advertising? Click private and boom it's gone. Sounds shitty to me and like a step backwards. Looks like your gonna do it anyway so my feeding back is kind of a waste of time. I mean why even bother asking for feedback if you declare this is what your gonna do anyway and not even explain why this is necessary or beneficial to us users?
Us users who have heard shit like this before and been burned by it.
PuttItOut ago
Never once have I considered this as a way to silence subs, but with anything we need to think about things like this.
Maybe force a Vote by the community before allowing a change?
70times7 ago
Now you have.
Please dont make voat reddit.
PuttItOut ago
That won't happen, don't freak out, this is a discussion.
jollux ago
We have no reason to believe you. The easiest way to prevent it is to never add the feature in the first place.
Wahaha ago
That's why there's the saying to never change a running system. You never figure out all the side effects. But it's just one of those wisdoms, like good intentions being the building blocks of the road to hell. There's truth there, but it's not the whole truth. My favorite saying is that for everything that is true, the opposite is true as well.
Personally I tend towards minimalism and the unix philosophy: do one thing and do it well. Don't be a jack of all trades, yet master of none. (What is it with me and folk wisdom today?) Anyway, Voat is good for people to exchange ideas and I feel that private subs won't benefit that.
So it would benefit something else, hence Voat would not do only one thing and that's why I'm against it. Eating your own dogfood doesn't mean to build something else to use. It means to use what you make yourself. As is. So if you don't like it, you'll improve it. And not in the sense of if you don't like a text editor you turn it into an e-mail client instead.
Captain_Faggot ago
Said every company, every time.