just try to share this one, i dare you
edit to clarify: this is our "no reblogs/retweets/QRTs" setting! lock a post after it's published in the meatball menu, or before it's published by toggling the setting in your drafts page.
- he/him
- duriansoftware.com/
the swift programming language is my fault to some degree. mostly here to see dogs, shitpost, fix old computers, and/or talk about math and weird computer programming things. for effortposts check the #longpost pinned tag. asks are open.
email
mailto:joe@duriansoftware.com
discord
jckarter
webzone
duriansoftware.com/code stuff
github.com/jckarter/fediverse
f.duriansoftware.com/@joeYou must log in to comment.
in reply to @aidan's post:
just kidding this one is still shareable so you can spread the news. but just imagine if i did lock this post
The notifications tab now says "Several pages followed you." This makes me feel like some sort of medieval knight
oic. i'd worry about people getting in under the gate after you hit post and before you lock it
maybe you can lock it in draft but that's kind of a weird workflow. preemptive locking would be neat, like behind a little 🔓/🔏/🔒 button but i know that's a bunch of ui design
agreed- the more post composer features that ship the more we need to accommodate them in the PoCo, but since this is more of a safety feature than anything else it's kind of a tricky balance between "do we punt this to wait for a UI update or ship a slightly suboptimal but fully functional feature."
that balance will tip way more towards the former once we have a support person though! since the wait time on UI changes becomes closer to, uh, 0
hey aidan i'm not getting any notifications that you're replying to my comments 
speaking of bugs/features balance lemaow
you can lock and unlock shares in the meatball menu on any published post, or you can save as a draft and lock shares prior to posting!
i allmost tried to share it, then i realized one of the folks i follow shared it. :P
But won’t it just be possible to copy the url? Or is the link to the post obfuscated in some way?
yes, the url will always be visible- the purpose of locking shares is to be able to manage the spread of a particular post across cohost. if, for example, you post a selfie to a public page, you're opting to share that content publicly, right? but you might not, for various reasons, want your selfies to be rehosted and commented upon by randos, or boosted outside of your sphere where you can't control the spread.
yes, a user could always post a link to that share-locked selfie, or screenshot it and repost that, but by share-locking a post, OP signals "do not share this" and any further reposting or rehosting then becomes an escalation that potentially violates the community guidelines.
I'm probably part of the old-school user set, but I don't ever use share buttons or the share sheet (or apps if I can help it) so people like me honestly would not notice that share was disabled. I'm reinforced in this practice by some sites introducing trackers in share buttons or share sheets, so it's further reinforced this habit. (I definitely don't share screenshots of posts.) So I think something like Pillowfort's separate toggles for "rebloggable" and the post privacy controls (everyone, logged in, only my followers, only my mutuals, only me - these show different icons in the header of the post) would be greatly appreciated. Other socmed places have varying/similar levels of grained access, I just used Pillowfort as an example since it's the most similar.
I think it's great to be able to indicate that something isn't intended to be shared, but I am concerned that this isn't made visibly clear.
If sharing a URL to something is considered something so extreme as being a violation of community guidelines, then I strongly feel that something other than a hidden indicator is necessary (because OP is not clearly indicating the request not to share). I know people like me post round up posts/link/rec posts to interesting posts they've seen during the week (to a blog or similar, not very high-traffic) with absolutely non-malicous intentions, and so I could definitely accidentally do this.
Should I make this a feature request? I checked the support forums but the relevant one was locked as it was already implemented.
Or maybe further refinements to security and posting are underway (I skimmed the above comments) in which case this will kind of fold into that. Hopefully! My concerns are out of good-faith use and avoiding inadvertent issues.
Totally understand this perspective (and your UI suggestions are great!), but the most important word in my example is potentially- i.e. reposting a share-locked selfie on cohost is, in this example, fairly clear cut harassment (OP said do not share this, but someone screenshotted and posted anyway) and would be treated as such.
For a counterexample, say someone posted an essay and turned off reblogs/shares for whatever reason- but you wanted to share a link to it on twitter. That's also, most likely, fine, as if OP didn't want a post publicly visible, they would either post it to a locked account or not at all. This is most likely not a violation because the actual material outcome of a "no reblogs" setting is that your post must be read in its original context, in its original post location. Also, most importantly, we can't take action on off-site posts. Can we ban a cohost account for malicious behavior or remove a post that reposts a locked selfie? absolutely. But we can't take down a tweet.
after writing all this, i wonder if this is actually just a consequence of me using the word "share" instead of "reblog" or "retweet" since those are tumblr/twitter terms that i consciously try to avoid to prevent ambiguity. ironic, because i think i made it more confusing by doing so!
to be explicit, when i say "you can now prevent a post from being shared," this doesn't affect the share sheet at all- it is a "no reblogs/retweets/quote retweets" setting.
CZXihicnotoviantiooauywfntrst Hecking gekkers you got us >w<