Re: Server administrator & accounts on shared instances (+ToS)

On 02/22/2015 06:40 PM, Ben wrote:
> Don't know why you emphasis it as a question. But it was also just me
> putting a shorter response to the story above it.  I would agree to not
> putting huge replies inline, thats why talk pages are linked from every
> user vote.
FYI I don't remember us using wiki talk pages in this working group,
maybe except Evan and Henry discussing something recently. I don't say
we shouldn't use them but just mention that we currently don't have it
as habit.

> 
> Refer back 2 lines to
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories#Report_content
> 
> -1. I find anything that involves reporting things to site administrators
> to not make sense for distributed cases. As a site owner I am also
> administrator so this would just tell me who is reporting me. Enterprise or
> larger implementations can always add report buttons in to their own user
> profiles. — Ben Roberts <https://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Benthatmustbeme> (talk
> <https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Benthatmustbeme&action=edit&redlink=1>)
> 05:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Ooops! missed this one, I guess I started with cherry-picking stories
with shorter comments... If we want to assume reading them in linear
way, we could add it as recommendation to the *please* list on the top
of the page. Otherwise we may reference another comment if they create
context.

> 
> Honestly reporting to an administrator is just messaging a publicly listed
> account, with a reference to a post.
> 
> In every implementation of reporting users in any social network I have
> seen, it is very important to not let the person you are reporting know
> where the report is from, it just creates more potential for
> abuse/retaliation/etc.   Thats why it doesn't make sense in this
> situation.  I don't think it should be part of the API.  Also, thats my
> opinion.  If you voted a +1 on it, I would not be having any extra
> control.  But I am the ONLY person yet to vote on it.
Makes sense! Maybe also worth capturing in more prominent place then
comment on one of User Stories?


> 
> 
> There are only 3 days left to get your votes in.  If you don't want me to
> have any unilateral control, you should get to voting.  There are a lot of
> stories to cover.
Thank you for taking your time to cast your votes Ben!

I just stayed 18h on a road - bus + train + hichhiking, I better take it
easy today and don't write anything or reply to anything else :S Will
cast my votes tomorrow while on yet another bus...

Cheers!

> 
> Ben
> 
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 12:24 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <
> perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 02/22/2015 06:04 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> Getting tired of defending -1 votes.  Just vote +1 it if you think its
>>> important.  Thats the point of voting isn't it?
>> Your *question* (note your use of ?) gave me impression that you may
>> assume limiting our work to deployment patterns promoted by IndieWeb
>> community. I think we still need to properly document this topic to
>> avoid confusion in a future.
>>
>> Also, even while I host only my own account as the only account, I still
>> act as an admin of that server, so always we have role of server
>> administrator, also in IndieWeb style deployments. It makes a lot of
>> sense to me to provide means for people to report to me that they might
>> find content published by me offending in some ways I simply couldn't
>> foresee. Plain comments will not do the job here, since I may not keep
>> up with all the possible comments and instead choose to prioritize
>> notifications of someone flagging something published by me as
>> inappropriate...
>>
>> Evan, should I add all those replies directly under Ben's *question* on
>> a wiki page? IMO it may get confusing if we start getting in longer
>> conversations there...
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Ben
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:49 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <
>>> perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ahoy o/
>>>>
>>>> I just noticed on User Stories page comments from Ben
>>>> "-1. What server administrator? This is distributed, There may be none.
>>>>  — Ben Roberts"
>>>> e.g.
>>>>
>>>>
>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories#Contest_content_report
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I understand that IndieWeb community focuses on specific scenario where
>>>> everyone hosts one's own account. At the same time I think that here we
>>>> also take into account scenarios where one instance, managed by server
>>>> admin(s), provides accounts for many people. We see it out in a wild
>>>> with Diaspora, Friendica, Pump.io, MediaGoblin etc.
>>>>
>>>> Could we clarify + document that we stay on the same page which
>>>> *includes* IndieWeb style of deployments but doesn't put such constraint
>>>> on everyone? Not sure where to put it on a wiki, maybe something like
>>>> "Deployment Consideration" page?
>>>>
>>>> BTW I also included in my exprimental drafts[1][2], concept of Terms of
>>>> Service, which will come relevant here and will differ a lot from what
>>>> we know in ecosystem with handful of services dominating ecosystem and
>>>> expecting people to actually read ToS.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers!
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://w3c-social.github.io/soc-glossary/
>>>> [2] http://w3c-social.github.io/soc-arch/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>