@tcely I agree that it isn't really broken, however the problem is that so many on fediverse are actively misinformed about how privacy on the platform works.
I don't want to say it is using the wrong mental model because it's something a little more basic than that. Users are simply misled about privacy.
To be clear, I'm not really disagreeing with the post, it's more about how do we frame this in a way that addresses the situation.
Heck, I don't think we're even disagreeing with the original post there.
This is a problem that needs to be addressed. That post described the problem as broken software, you describe it as users using the wrong mental model, and I describe it as users being misinformed about how it works, and the funny thing is I end up circling back to the original post trying to raise awareness and clarify that for users.
Maybe it's three takes on the same problem :-)
I think misinformation certainly contributed to users having the wrong mental model about how that audience level works.
Unfortunately, that usually came from other users. The documentation was there to read with correct information. However, a small portion of people read the documentation.
People making an assumption and sharing information that they haven't verified as accurate is much more common.
@tcely I get that, but my practical concern of the moment is that fighting over the terminology of broken versus not broken, even if that is a valid and worthy thing to address in its own right,
I worry that that argument distracts from the task of addressing the practical problem of correcting users' mental models, so that they can use the platform more effectively and safely.
I agree that broken is not the best terminology for the guy to use, but I would rather focus on fixing the mental models than dying on the hill of whether software meets its design goals :-)
