11
votes
Option to hide "invited by" in user page
Not because this is a problem yet, but because it will be.
We're all familiar with the flavour that some usernames have, when someone with the name I_RAPE_CATS invites people and they are entirely unaware of this being on the userpage forever and ever it's going to become something people will want.
My invitees so far have both remarked "Looks like I have you on my userpage forever" which is fine, but for some it won't be.
I don't think Tildes should even store who invited you. It's detrimental to privacy because you then have an implicit connection to that person.
I think the connection is completely intended. Having that connection allows Tildes to hold people accountable for their invites, and when the "trust" system comes into play the trust of your invites will count towards your trust.
It will also make it significantly easier to track bad acting groups that attempt to join the site as a group to cause trouble. And it will make it easy to track people who send invites to themselves too.
So I don't have a problem with it existing, and I kinda like it from a moderation standpoint, but I can see the issue with it being visible with some names.
It will not be a good idea once the site kicks off.
As long as it's 2000 users, you can use a system like that. If this website is to gather tens of thousands of users within the next year, this system will easily be irrelevant.
Gmail was invite only for like... 5 to 8 years. It spread in invite only just fine, because people wanted to be there and invites were plentiful.
It would be perfectly fine if invites were not being drastically limited. When the number of invites we are given exceeds our ability to give them out easily the fact we're in invite only mode won't matter much, floods of tens of thousands will still be able to join on invites, and they will.
I'm saying it'll be difficult to display the thousands of invites on a user's profile, not that invitation-only is not a viable model of growth.
Ohhhhhhh.
That makes a lot of sense. Yeah you're very right there. I misunderstood you!
I didn't make it easy to understand what I mean, pardon me.
It's a deliberate feature. While Tildes is invitation-only, it matters who invites whom. If someone repeatedly invites people who are disruptive trolls, that would raise concerns about them. Deimos has said elsewhere that if someone invites a lot of people who end up getting banned, that may result in the inviter being banned as well.
Imagine you get invited to a party and you bring along your friend who always gets drunk and starts picking fights with everyone. Was that really the right thing for you to do?
The point is to make people think carefully about who they invite here - because the behaviour of people you invite will reflect on you. We're all here to contribute to this site - posts, comments, donations... and other users. If our contributions actually hinder the site, then we're not helping.
An easier solution is to not give them any more invites.
That's also a good idea.
However, it still requires Tildes to track who invited whom.
Agreed
According to their user profile, they were invited by Amarok.
To add to this, you should have control over whether your name appears on the profile pages of people you have invited.
I think that, aside from moderation purposes, what information is available about you here should be controlled by you where possible. I'd like it if it were up to the user to decide whether the person who invited them is visible on their profile, as well as whether the user shows up on the profiles of those they've invited. Of course, this information could still be available to moderators and admins since it is useful information, but for reasons others have mentioned (and that I've discussed in other posts) I think this should be a privacy option.
That's an interesting thought! Maybe you regret having invited a particular person or don't want to be visible anymore on their page for one reason or another. Maybe they turned into a horrible person, or maybe you want to be less visible.
Many valid reasons from that side too!
I wonder if maybe it wouldn't be in line with tildes altogether to have such usernames, it would seem that tildes is less of a free for all then places like reddit.
I don't have an issue with names like that. Someone being called FART is just, what it is. But it's not a name some people would want on their profile.
Any names with hate or to cause a deliberate issue however, they'd be banned when reported I assume.
That's a big assumption to make. Maybe you should check that with @Deimos.
I created a separate topic for this as it could probably use its own discussion.
Good thinking.
The announcement blog post states:
The only way it will not be a victim of this is by refusing to tolerate intolerance. So the fact that hate and trying to deliberately cause upset with a username would not be tolerated is a completely logical assumption to make, not a "big" one. There isn't a valid reason to tolerate someone with racism or homophobia in their name. Just as I expect anyone using such things in the pejorative in a comment to also find themselves swiftly moderated.
You've gone from "I_RAPE_CATS" to "racism or homophobia". I think you need to identify exactly what it is you're worried about - is it only hate speech in usernames, or is it just naughty words in general?
No I haven't. I've gone from "Any names with hate or to cause a deliberate issue" to racism and homophobia.
Hate, in the context of speech, is widely understood to mean "racism and homophobia". Hatespeech.
I didn't say naughty words. And I think you'll notice I brought up "shittymorph" as an example of something that shouldn't be moderated elsewhere. But there are examples of things people could make to deliberately cause an issue, such as "fuck_democrats" then going into political threads and just being normal. Or "fuck_videogamename" and going into the ~ for that game where it will be an issue.
There are valid ways people use usernames to cause problems. You can and should apply pretty much the same logic to usernames as you can to comments. The same problems, the same outcomes.
Your post says:
The conversation has moved on. The more recent comment that you replied to and started this chain with says:
If you don't reply to the top-level post and start your reply at this post, don't be surprised if I assume that you are replying to this post (quoted) and not the top-level post.
Either way, this is more recent in our conversation. It is usually commonly understood that as conversation moves forwards so to does the understanding and specifics of the topic as they get further defined.
This is going nowhere. Let's drop it.