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 →
truthwoke33 ago
What are your plans to mitigate user abuse e.g. creating a secret CP sub or a harassment sub?
draaaak ago
Exactly this.
Crensch ago
So, no more direct messages that nobody else can see?
draaaak ago
Private subs and direct messaging are obviously not the same thing. If for whatever reason you think they are, then why don't we just stick with direct messaging and not worry about creating a private sub feature?
Crensch ago
They very obviously are exactly what you were talking about. Your comment was very specifically about private communication here.
What is the difference between multiple private Communications between users, and a functional forum type place for those Communications?
draaaak ago
A. That wasn't my comment, I was agreeing with another user's comment.
B. One is private messages between individual users, and the other is a private forum. You just said it yourself..
They're functionally different types of private communication.
Crensch ago
Your comment agreeing exactly with the words makes those words part of your comment. Are you going to act like a fucking Jew and keep arguing these stupid trivial points, or are you going to answer the question?
draaaak ago
I have answered your question by explaining the differences between private messaging and private forums. You just don't like my answer. Stop being such a dense faggot.
Crensch ago
You just did. My comment was from earlier. Stop trying to make it seem like I'm ignoring something that you've already said.
Also, your explanation was, more people seeing private messages equals bad. Congratulations, you're a little retarded.
draaaak ago
I don't have to try to make it seem that way:
That was never my explanation, or my argument.
Crensch ago
That's exactly what you are doing. Okay so if that's not your position, then the Aesthetics is bad. It looks different, so it's bad.
draaaak ago
None of my comments have been about aesthetics, they have all focused on the functional differences between private messaging and private subs. I also haven't yet made one single argument supporting my position that private subs are a bad idea for this site. But it sounds like that's something you want, so here goes:
Allowing for private subs makes it possible for users to put the whole site at risk. Here's an example of how that could play out...
Someone, using a VPN to protect himself, creates a new account, then they create a private sub with a seemingly harmless name. This person allows no other users to join the sub, it's just that one dude. Then, this one dude posts several hundred links to CP, which no one else will know about, because these private posts won't show up on v/all. He waits a month or two, and then makes it public. Still, no one else on voat will see the posts from this sub because they are old and have no traffic or voats. Then the user reports voat, because of these posts, to the FBI. They investigate and find that hundreds of links to CP have been on voat for months, and no one has even tried to stop it. This sort of thing is only possible when there is no community oversight of the activity in a sub.
Another way private subs could hurt voat is if they are used to organize criminal/terrorist activity.
Literal shills would love private subs too, for what should be obvious reasons.
These sorts of things are still possible, although on a much smaller scale, with private messaging, but pose a much smaller threat to the safety of the site as a whole compared to if they were carried out in a private sub format.
Crensch ago
Literally, your argument has been:
A -> B. OK! A -> C. OK! A -> D. OK!
A -> Place where B C and D can see BAD.
It's nothing but a change in the way the words are placed and viewed. Aesthetics.
All right, listening.
All links in private subverses are broken.
Next.
Subverses get an either-or at the beginning, and cannot change later.
Next.
No other ways to solve that, eh?
Already can be used for that.
Next.
No. Why?
Oh no! TEXT might be there!
Remember when you owned this:
?
Are you also against private messages?
draaaak ago
No.
Remember when the context of that had nothing to do with private direct messages, but instead was specifically about private subs?
Stop being a faggot.
Shills organizing against the rest of voat.. no potential for abuse or harm there...
Except when a sub is private, there is no potential for community oversight.. which is my whole point, which you seem to have completely missed, somehow... amazing..
Maybe, but not without violating the privacy of the sub. Either way, the risk is still there, and needs to be considered. What also needs to be considered, is the potential for private subs to be created en mass so as to overwhelm the staff that may be tasked with monitoring private sub activity. As it stands currently, content posted to the site is monitored by the entire userbase, and can be dealt with in a distributed manner through reporting, downvoating, and psa type alerting of other users. Once you allow for private subs, you lose all community oversight, and put the oversight burden entirely on voat employees, which could be very costly, and a big problem.
Maybe, but the system hasn't been implemented yet, so you don't know that this is how it would work. Even then, the sub wouldn't need to be public to harbor links to CP, and would thus still put the whole site in danger.
Again, you don't know that because the system hasn't been implemented.
Nope. But it clearly doesn't matter how many times I explain it, you will continue to refuse to understand.
Crensch ago
Remember when they're effectively the same thing? And one already exists?
draaaak ago
Remember when I explained that they weren't the same, but you completely disregarded my explanation because you didn't like it?
Crensch ago
You know what? Let me help you:
There was no caveat to your words, nor his. PRIVATE COMMUNICATION should be relegated to a different platform.
What are direct messages?
You claim this as if it's self-evident. It is not. In fact, the opposite is true.
Then you go on to claim this:
When you quote someone and say "Exactly this.", you are owning those words. They become your words because you agree with them exactly.
Both of the points you made here apply to both forms of communication; your argument is null, because you showed no difference between them.
Are these both private messages between individual users? Private messages. Between individual users. And the other is a forum. OH NO!
So the form. The aesthetics of how the information is conveyed. "Oh, it's not a PM, it's a FORUM!"
This is you declaring that you have done something when you clearly have not. This is your level.
I'm dense. Because you cannot explain how having private messages, between individual users, in a format that shows all the users meant to receive the message easily, is somehow functionally different than multiple direct messages. Got it.
This is why:
Apparently, you do, because your argument is nigger-tier.
Your argument was so stupid, I tried to give you a way out. You couldn't accept my olive branch, because you're too stupid to see that the only halfway legitimate argument is that the private forums make multiple eyes on the communication easier.
I'm the dense one?
They all are. Every one of them. DM fine, forum not fine. Why? Because of its format. What is a format?
None. Convenience, at the very best. No functional difference that could support your position.
You've made arguments that the two are different, and failed. You've even made arguments about aesthetics without even realizing it.
Maybe you should consider lurking.
And you got absolutely destroyed here on your position on private subs. You got destroyed in the OP you were commenting under, words written long before your comment. How embarrassing.
@kevdude @Trigglypuff @Empress @srayzie @Vindicator
Not sure who this guy is, but he argues like a fucking kike.
draaaak ago
Well look at you, calling in back up. Adorable. "Oh noes! draaaak is standing his ground and defending his position! Only a kike would ever do such a thing! I needs helps!"
Pathetic.
Thanks, but no thanks. I don't need your help, which, is in fact not help, but merely condescending cockery.
CONTEXT MATTERS
The context was not private direct messaging, it was private subs. THAT'S WHAT PUTT'S WHOLE FUCKING POST WAS ABOUT. I tried to make this clear for you right away in response to your first comment, you even quoted it just now:
But despite you just now quoting my statement, you've still somehow managed to continue acting like a faggot, and are insisting that DMs are the same as private subs. Which of course, they aren't.
What is self-evident is that, despite them both being private forms of communication, they are still different types of private communication. This was my whole point, which flew right over your head.
No they don't. I was highlighting the part of the comment that I agreed with. It still wasn't my comment. Regardless, I still supported my position more than sufficiently. Maybe not sufficiently enough for you, but maybe you're not as smart as you think you are.
Private messages between two individuals, messages that remain in these user's inboxes for eternity, are not equivalent to the sort of private forum that was being discussed.
You sort of act like you get it, but I can tell you're just being cheeky, leading me to suspect that you really don't understand the difference.
I said:
FUNCTIONALLY
And somehow you misinterpret this as meaning merely "form", and therefore merely "aesthetics". There's something wrong with you.
Yes.
I did, but you didn't get it. That's not my problem. ...you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink...
No no no, it's your comprehension of my argument that is nigger-tier, which is why you can't figure it out, and continue to misrepresent it.
Projection. You only think it's stupid because you failed to understand it.
No, you didn't. But even if you did, I wouldn't care, because my argument was sound from the beginning, and I have no reason to take your "way out".
Still misrepresenting my argument. lol and I'm the stupid one. Much projection.
Nope, because the differences I described were not aesthetic differences, they were functional differences. Regardless, I went it to plenty of detail on why I think private subs are worse than private messages in another comment. But I guess you're just ignoring that now. Cool.
^^Good example of you being dense.
No, they didn't fail, you just didn't like them. You thought my arguments were about why I didn't like the idea of private subs, but the whole time I was just explaining how private messaging and private subs were functionally different. This is what I mean by you failing to understand my arguments, ffs, you couldn't even understand what was being argued.
No, I didn't, you simply misinterpreted my arguments as being about aesthetics. Just as you misinterpreted my arguments as being about "more eyeballs on private messages equals bad".
Bitch, I've been here just as long as you. Maybe you should consider not overestimating your own intelligence.
You never destroyed me. You may want to think you did, but sorry, you didn't. And of course you didn't, as I said before, you can't destroy an argument you fail to understand. And I know you don't understand my argument, because when you try to repeat it back to me, you get it completely wrong. I'm not embarrassed, not at all, instead, I now think you're just a low IQ faggot. I didn't think this before this ridiculous argument... I also just lost a boat load of respect for you after you pinged for backup, SBBH style, because you're so stupid that you think I argue like a kike.
And with that, I bid you good night. I have much better things to do on a Friday evening that converse with a dumb dipshit like yourself.
Crensch ago
Your argument was literally so stupid that it was the only remotely plausible argument. Let me quote your words for you:
BOTH ARE PRIVATE MESSAGES BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL USERS, but the ONLY half-reasonable assumption to be made here is about numbers. But you say your ACTUAL problem is with the FORMAT, apparently, because you specifically state "private forum".
And since you have NOT YET made a statement that delineates the two in any meaningful way beyond the format, then that is all one can be expected to glean from your words.
If you've been paying attention, you'd know I'm more likely to do the opposite. Then again, I suppose even if you were paying attention, at your IQ, you would never notice.
You're the only one who would ever think that.
It's so sad that you can't even understand that I understood more of your position than even you did. How does it feel to be an NPC?
Why would I give a shit about respect from someone that argues like a Jew?
I ping who I want, when I want, and SBBH are full of good goats that defend Voat and actually make far better arguments than you ever could when they leave their shitposting subverses.
No, you don't. You'll always be less-than, because you can't even see what I'm showing you in your own arguments, because you refuse to admit when you're wrong.
Sad fucking existence, dude. I can't imagine.
Crensch ago
Oh, look. You're part of that crew, aren't you?
Ask anyone I pinged if I ping people like this for "help". I ping them so they can enjoy when I dismantle someone.
You're either too stupid to understand that it's more help than you deserve, or you're paid to pretend you don't understand.
WORDS MATTER. DEFINITIONS. BLANKET STATEMENTS TAKEN AT FACE VALUE ARE YOURS TO CAVEAT.
And when you don't, and you don't correct yourself when shown otherwise, you make an ass of yourself.
Also, context is just one facet in myriad failures you cannot seem to escape from.
Correct yourself then. Your words were a blanket statement.
And you've not shown the last sentence to be true. You just claim it as self-evident.
Effectively no different, the only difference being what? (Hint: aesthetics/convenience)
Look at the little Jew pretending agreeing - EXACTLY - with those words doesn't mean he owns them. Top kek.
You didn't support anything. You tried to delineate between the two forms of communication and failed miserably. Both descriptions could work for both forms of communication.
What, exactly, do you believe you did right here?
-Private messages between (more than) two individuals, messages that remain in the subverse for eternity, are equivalent.-
Wow.
"Inbox is SO different than the subverse! Look at me everyone! The UI for the text is different! Didn't I do good! I showed that mean Crensch that he was wrong!"
Are you Jewish, draaak? Because your IQ, and what you see as "winning" are both nigger-tier; your dishonesty is Jew tier.
Oh, I get the completely irrelevant difference of format. It's a nigger-tier position to hold. Make a statement about the functionality of the inbox that I couldn't make about a private subverse. You can't. Because the function is to convey private text from one party to another. Guess what? Everything the inbox can do, a forum can do, and vice-versa. The ONLY difference is the FORMAT/LOOK/AESTHETICS, and the EASE with which things can be done on the subverse.
You sort of act like you get it...
No, you don't. You're entirely too stupid to get it. The two formats of communication are EFFECTIVELY, FUNCTIONALLY, and FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, the same. The only difference is their efficiency with multiple recipients of this information... and what was the other one? OH YEAH, AESTHETICS.
How fucking stupid are you? I have destroyed FUNCTIONALLY multiple times already, you fucking chromosome heavyweight champion.
You can repeat a cliche, but you can't think of a way to delineate the two forms of private messaging outside of the ways I've outline for you.
I haven't misrepresented shit. You haven't even realized the implications of your own words, and that is a personal problem I've nothing to do with.
I understood more about your own argument than you did. You're slowly realizing it, but you refuse to admit it; don't worry, it'll sink in someday.
Literally destroyed from every angle. Your premises were all false. You couldn't even delineate the two forms of communication in a way that effectively separates them in a way that any claim you made wouldn't either apply to both, or hadn't already been demolished in OP.
Yeah, it's silly how fantastically unequipped you are to be having this conversation.
I'm ignoring that?
https://voat.co/v/Voat/3009940/16522096
The implementation doesn't have to be retarded, moron. Every "point" you made was embarrassingly low-quality. I look back at your words and I feel fremdschamen for you. How do you live with yourself?
Do you want me to go back and respond to every one of your fantastically stupid points? I can do that. I had already answered every pitiful argument you put up previously, but I suppose I can do it again if you haven't had enough.
Good example of you not understanding that words have meaning.
I could apply them to both formats of communication you retarded mongrel. Which means they are null as arguments the two are different. Which means you failed.
I understood that you couldn't accomplish even that. I also understood that you were, in fact, about how you didn't like the idea of private subs, since the first fucking text you quoted was about exactly that.
Holy fucking balls your nose is growing, Rabbi Pinocchio.
Vindicator ago
You should start a sub and teach remedial logic. You could give awards to goats who post examples of flawed thinking and explain where it went wrong: the Golden Crensch (I started to say "gold stars" and then realized that totally wouldn't work). ;-)
Crensch ago
I like the idea, and appreciate the compliment.
I never learned any of this classically, so I wouldn't really know where to begin. I just see something is wrong and sink my teeth in.
Vindicator ago
All the better reason to do it. Raw talent is always improved by disciplined practice.
Vindicator ago
Lol.
Crensch ago
Remember when your explanation was completely demolished? Don't worry, everyone else can see what's going on here if they choose to read it; maybe one of them can explain how you're wrong.
draaaak ago
Nope, because you never actually "demolished" it. Instead, you repeatedly misrepresented my arguments as being "more eyeballs on private messages equals bad". You can't demolish an argument you don't understand.
Yet, no one has, including you. Maybe, it's because I'm not wrong.