Plume/Plume

Fork 24

Guest comments #527

New issue

Open

opened 2019-04-17 19:29:56 +00:00 by elegaanz · 6 comments

elegaanz commented

2019-04-17 19:29:56 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

Some people may want to comment on an article, even if they don't have an account on the fediverse. It is a feature that is available on many blog engines, and even if it less useful with Plume (since people can interact with their Fediverse account easily) not everyone has an account on the fediverse.

Describe the solution you'd like

Having an option to post a comment as guest (only requiring an email address).

Describe alternatives you've considered

None I think?

Additional context

This brings some other issues:

how do we federate it?
- a global account per instance, dedicated to these comments
- an account that is auto-generated for each guest email address
- don't federate it at all: comments are addressed to the author of the article, so if it is on their instance it is enough (however, one could comment from another instance, and since posts may have many authors, they may not be on the same instance)
how do we avoid abuses?
- I think having an option to disable it at instance level for admins, and at blog and/or post level for authors would be a good solution (it should be opt-in)

**Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.** Some people may want to comment on an article, even if they don't have an account on the fediverse. It is a feature that is available on many blog engines, and even if it less useful with Plume (since people can interact with their Fediverse account easily) not everyone has an account on the fediverse. **Describe the solution you'd like** Having an option to post a comment as guest (only requiring an email address). **Describe alternatives you've considered** None I think? **Additional context** This brings some other issues: - how do we federate it? - a global account per instance, dedicated to these comments - an account that is auto-generated for each guest email address - don't federate it at all: comments are addressed to the author of the article, so if it is on their instance it is enough (however, one could comment from another instance, and since posts may have many authors, they may not be on the same instance) - how do we avoid abuses? - I think having an option to disable it at instance level for admins, and at blog and/or post level for authors would be a good solution (it should be opt-in)

👍 1

elegaanz commented

2019-04-17 19:30:41 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Here is the Loomio thread BTW: https://framavox.org/d/KkydgAlV/guest-comment

trwnh commented

2019-04-17 20:06:21 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

In any case, auto-creating guest accounts is a bad idea because it will pollute your namespace and it means that no two guests can have the same username.

Since it's not "real" data attached to a "real" actor, I tentatively think guest comments shouldn't federate. It would seem weird to see guest comments attached to a "guest" actor or a "system" actor because then the name needs to be dynamically filled into the content somehow. But maybe it would seem weirder to make these comments unfetchable? In any case, auto-creating guest accounts is a bad idea because it will pollute your namespace and it means that no two guests can have the same username.

👍 2

trinity-1686a commented

2019-04-17 20:21:56 +00:00

Owner

I'm not sure why we should require an email address though, if we use it to verify two people are the same, it's not necessary hard to guess someone's email, and if it's to log it, one can just use a different throwaway email each time

Some software allow you to do things anonymously, which is shown with a special account that reflect that, but whose name can't be changed (think cheers on twitch, questions on curiouscat/retrosping...). if we want guest comments to be federated I think it's the only good way. I'm not sure why we should require an email address though, if we use it to verify two people are the same, it's not necessary hard to guess someone's email, and if it's to log it, one can just use a different throwaway email each time

👍 3

trwnh commented

2019-04-17 22:43:16 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

is collecting email even necessary? if you want attribution to be
non-anonymous, then you can ask for a simple name instead. it's better for
privacy to not ask for any unnecessary information

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 15:22 fdb-hiroshima notifications@github.com wrote:

Some software allow you to do things anonymously, which is shown with a
special account that reflect that, but whose name can't be changed (think
cheers on twitch, questions on curiouscat/retrosping...). if we want guest
comments to be federated I think it's the only good way.

I'm not sure why we should require an email address though, if we use it
to verify two people are the same, it's not necessary hard to guess
someone's email, and if it's to log it, one can just use a different
throwaway email each time

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/Plume-org/Plume/issues/527#issuecomment-484246329,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACQ5OX5GSHIV3KLE7JVLTO3PQ6BGLANCNFSM4HGXFT6Q
.

is collecting email even necessary? if you want attribution to be non-anonymous, then you can ask for a simple name instead. it's better for privacy to not ask for any unnecessary information On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 15:22 fdb-hiroshima <notifications@github.com> wrote: > Some software allow you to do things anonymously, which is shown with a > special account that reflect that, but whose name can't be changed (think > cheers on twitch, questions on curiouscat/retrosping...). if we want guest > comments to be federated I think it's the only good way. > > I'm not sure why we should require an email address though, if we use it > to verify two people are the same, it's not necessary hard to guess > someone's email, and if it's to log it, one can just use a different > throwaway email each time > > — > You are receiving this because you commented. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/Plume-org/Plume/issues/527#issuecomment-484246329>, > or mute the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACQ5OX5GSHIV3KLE7JVLTO3PQ6BGLANCNFSM4HGXFT6Q> > . >

👍 2 ❤️ 1

igalic commented

2019-04-18 08:26:07 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

probably so you know which anonymous comment you need to ban.?

bugaevc commented

2019-04-18 08:44:29 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I feel that requiring an email address would be a strong barrier to commenting. It's not difficult to paste my email into the field, and I'm not giving away much of a personal info (my email is publicly known anyway), but still, inputting your email address, just like inputting your full name, requires some commitment.

What if commenting anonymously automatically generated an implicit account for the commenter, which would get saved into cookies like full accounts are (this way, it'd be possible to track/ban spammers); then there'd exist an option to "upgrade" such an implicit account to a full account, keeping comment authorship. Perhaps the upgrade could also happen automatically when signing up if the current user is already "signed into" an implicit account. I feel that requiring an email address would be a strong barrier to commenting. It's not *difficult* to paste my email into the field, and I'm not giving away much of a personal info (my email is publicly known anyway), but still, inputting your email address, just like inputting your full name, requires some commitment.

👍 3 ❤️ 1

No milestone

No project

No assignees

2 participants

Notifications

Due date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: Plume/Plume#527

No description provided.

Rows
Columns