AP: interpret unlisted (aka quiet public) as public?

[snarfed]

We currently don't, but maybe we should? Background:

• https://docs.joinmastodon.org/spec/activitypub/#Mention
• https://zirk.us/@philippsteinkrueger/112411487158100467
• https://seb.jambor.dev/posts/understanding-activitypub/#unlisted-messages

[qazmlp]

@phillippsteinkrueger@zirk.us isn't quite right about this, as there are a few other important effects of 'Unlisted':

• removes the post from remote 'Federated timeline's (and many other aggregate feeds like most topic bots and such, as well as some other app-specific discovery features).
• removes the post from 'Search' (including hashtag search).

Essentially, it turns off "Bluesky-style" interaction modes, if you will.
I use Unlisted posting specifically to avoid these, and many other people do too.

I would not be able to use the bridge at all if this was changed globally.
Making it a per-account setting somehow would be a-okay though, as long as it's opt-in.

---

That said, there are some good arguments for bridging some Unlisted posts over to Bluesky in my eyes, as long as either it's a thread and the first post in the thread was Public (this is a decently common style of "less-annoying" threading on the fediverse, as Public replies do appear in most aggregate feeds there) or the post @-mentions a bridged Bluesky user, so that the bridging intention can be assumed for opted-in authors.

Bridging Unlisted replies from opted-in users where all previous posts in the thread are visible to Bluesky would probably be fine too, since Bluesky's default behaviour for replies actually resembles Mastodon's somewhat. It still exposes them to search iinm, but that should be a smaller issue than how incomplete discussions would be without that.

[snarfed]

Interesting! Thanks for the details.

[ygg2]

In addition to a replies setting, maybe a setting for bridging Unlisted boosts as well?
I heard Akkoma has boosts as Unlisted or at least has that as a default

[snarfed]

Hmm, interesting!

Honestly, user-level settings for anything are pretty unlikely. They add a level of complexity, UX, auth, and maintenance and compatibility burden that I'm not quite ready to take on. I definitely appreciate the ideas and info though!

[ygg2]

Honestly, user-level settings for anything are pretty unlikely. They add a level of complexity, UX, auth, and maintenance and compatibility burden that I'm not quite ready to take on. I definitely appreciate the ideas and info though!

Makes sense. Perhaps there could be a case like "bridge Unlisted boosts of posts that are already bridged/are originally Bluesky posts"?

I think the main use of Unlisted boosting is to avoid spamming timelines and the uses @qazmlp pointed out for Unlisted posting don't apply (booster isn't the initial poster) but I may be forgetting something

[qazmlp]

I agree, as long as the original post has been bridged already (or it's a self-boost of a Public post), it makes complete sense to me to bridge Unlisted boosts.

[ygg2]

So I notice that unlisted boosting is (sorta) working!

This post I boosted: https://bsky.app/profile/vampyuuweekend.bsky.social/post/3ky6okuyb2b2x
appears to have no boosts or likes, but you can see it on my profile here, the boosts here, and the likes here

Documenting here in just in case, especially since it seems like some of this might not be intended

[snarfed]

@ygg2 interesting, good catch! Thanks for reporting. Looking at the boost's AS2, https://sakurajima.social/notes/9w68fc7934 , it is indeed unlisted: it's to: https://sakurajima.social/users/9r3pm4h264/followers and only cc: https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public. Hrm.

[ygg2]

Small addition to this, it seems like Unlisted self-boost doesn't work the same. I had to un-boost and then re-boost as Public.

[DenebTM]

Until (if ever) this behaviour is changed, could the fact that Unlisted posts aren't bridged be mentioned under https://fed.brid.gy/docs#fediverse-what ?

I know it's mentioned under #visibility, but wouldn't hurt to qualify the statement "anything that interacts with Bluesky users" there imho.

[snarfed]

@DenebTM Yes! Good idea, will do.

[Tamschi]

I think this is causing confusion again since Mastodon renamed 'unlisted'.
It would be good to list 'quiet public' explicitly under #visibility.

[snarfed]

Thanks! Agreed, done, deploying now.

[imsodin]

Have you considered the previously suggested option (latter part of this comment) to conditionally bridge unlisted posts, if they are in response to a public/bridged post? Or potentially simpler heuristic still, any unlisted post that @-mentions a bluesky account (resp. whatever is the protocol equivalent of that)?
Concretely what I am curious about is: Do you think that's a sensible thing to do in principle? And if so, can you think of technical challenges off the top of your head to implementing it?
I am aware that even if your answers were Yes and No, that wouldn't mean anything about it happening (prios, limited time, personal interest, ... - any of all the usual reasons, valid by definition because personal). I am mostly wanting to gauge the feasibility and potential acceptance of such a change in case "anyone" wanted to tackle it (don't expect anything please, just very, very maybe :) ).

I just started trying out the bridge (1) and stumbled upon this when my unlisted responses didn't turn up in bluesky. I usually respond unlisted, unless I feel like I have something to say worth reading by anyone outside of the thread, which is almost never. In practice it doesn't matter much, I am mostly just a lurker, and I could post public instead as a workaround, but I still would like to follow that principles just in case. Plus I don't see any reason why a user wouldn't want a response to a bluesky post (aka they opted in already) to be visible alongside that bluesky post.

(1) Recently there's interesting content on bluesky I don't find in the fediverse, so I started using it again. However I like the client experience with phanpy a lot more and would prefer just a single social feed/app, thus considering the bridge again. Also having a lot of hope around the opt-out discussions going on in other tickets at the moment, as that's a currently a significant barrier to a unified experience for me.

[snarfed]

Honestly, I'm not sure.

I definitely get how bridging unlisted/quiet public posts would be useful! And even other non-public features like DMs too, #1425. However, when I first started building https://brid.gy/ , the predecessor to Bridgy Fed, over 13y ago (!), I drew a bright line that it only handles fully public content, and I continued that with Bridgy Fed. As just one person's side project, with no funding or organizational structure or other protection, that's made me a bit more comfortable that I'm minimizing one big source of risk, harm, and liability.

So, while I get that unlisted is still technically public, and would be very useful to bridge, I'm still reluctant.

[snarfed]

Apart from that, the drawbacks in #1036 (comment) still seem to apply. We don't have a way to recreate the fediverse's unlisted/quiet public behavior, ie hiding from feeds and search, in Bluesky. If we bridge unlisted posts, even replies, they'll still immediately show up in Bluesky custom feeds and search. That mismatch isn't great.

[makew0rld]

On my instance, the convention is to use unlisted for replies to the first post in your thread. This prevents long threads from clogging up the local feed. Since Bluesky has no local feed, it makes sense to bridge unlisted posts (IMO) bc otherwise my threads are broken.

Tusky (popular fedi Android client) even supports doing this automatically for replies to yourself, so I don't think it's so uncommon.