A boost is just an ActivityPub Announce message; there's nothing that forces the message to be public. Why does Mastodon's UI not allow me to boost messages privately?
@robryk
Which kind of privately do you mean?
and what do you think about this different #mastodon related proposal?
https://qoto.org/@freeschool/108256186916612393
Anything other than posting to my outbox (so, at least all the other options you get when you create a text post, though IIRC some sensible and feasible options are missing there, too).
I don't support modifying messages that an instance's users intend to publish and pretending that they come from those users, or modifying the messages that an instance's users see without their knowledge. I support suggesting that users change their links to point at alternative YT frontends, offering an easy option to do so (e.g. a dialog when submitting a post that would ask whether you want them to be so modified), and offering an option to your users to see links modified in such a way when reading posts.
> Ok, so how would you use boost in the private setting as you see it?
Point a particular group of people at a particular post.
I mean, if you think that non-public posts make sense, then the same reasons should apply to non-public boosts, no?
> if it means leaving URL's as is and simply changing / giving option on-click to go to more friendly url
That's another option I'd find reasonable. What I meant is having a dialog asking you "do you want to replace the YT/... links with invidious/..." when you post something that includes former. If you agree, the post is actually changed.
@robryk Got it thanks...
Seems plenty of options, but just some coding is needed and will / determination for going against such links as maybe sysops etc might actually use google them$elves and not care / want to change this relationship they have! (or they feel doing mail / storage themself is a hassle etc etc, many subtle reasons / comforts including the origins of internet coming from google so natural to stick with it until manually phased out or kicked off-boarded like a few places are going).
By the way anything else off-topic/related welcome since we covered that somewhat or happy to see what else you think.
Am probably going to re-write the picture and text for and take on board what you said:
https://qoto.org/@freeschool/108256186916612393
@freeschool BTW Another option is to include such URL rewriting options in _clients_. I expect this to be, if implemented, more widely used in mobile clients.
@robryk
- Ok, so how would you use boost in the private setting as you see it?
- Some good idea about the links, I took these points to be considered when debating this topic:
--"modifying messages... pretending to be from users"
--"modifying the messages that an instance's users see without their knowledge"
--a dialog box offering an option to users to see links modified in such a way when reading posts.
( that last note is excellent if it means leaving URL's as is and simply changing / giving option on-click to go to more friendly url - for example in an users options / preferences about reading such links)