Veritula – Meta

Showing only #2728 and its comments.

See full discussion
  Log in or sign up to participate in this discussion.
With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas.

Discussions can branch out indefinitely. Zoom out for the bird’s-eye view.
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP revised 22 days ago·#2728
3rd of 3 versions

Feature idea: private discussions only the creator and invited people can see. This could be a paid feature; $2 per discussion, say.

Criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

What happens if you add a user to a private discussion, they submit a bunch of ideas, and then you remove them?

Criticism of #2728Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

There could be hard cutoff: they lose access to everything, including their own ideas in that discussion.

Criticism of #3071 Battle tested
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

But that sucks. Maybe someone works hard and submits a bunch of ideas only to lose access to them all.

Criticism of #3072Criticized2
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

That risk could be clearly communicated in the UI.

Criticism of #3079
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

This functionality is pretty standard across apps. You can be removed from Discord servers, Telegram channels, etc without warning or reason at any time. People generally know and accept this. If they still put in effort, that’s on them.

Criticism of #3079
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

But then invitees might not put as much effort into those discussions.

Criticism of #3072Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

That depends on a bunch of factors, including their relationship with the discussion owner, into which Veritula has no visibility.

Criticism of #3081
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

What if they still have subscriptions or bookmarks in that discussion?

Criticism of #3072Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Those could be deleted when the user is removed.

Criticism of #3099
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

If the discussion owner accidentally removes someone and then adds them back right away, it sucks if all the associated records are still gone.

Criticism of #3100Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

In later implementations, I could maybe implement a ‘soft’ delete or grace period. Or I could keep the associated records and rely on authorization rules to prevent access. But as of right now, that’s a premature consideration.

Criticism of #3101
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

They could keep access to their own ideas but not see others’.

Criticism of #3071Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

There’d probably be a bunch of edge cases with this approach. For example, others would still be able to comment on those ideas, and the comments would have to be hidden from OPs. Which begs the question of how that impacts the displayed criticism count… And so on.

Criticism of #3073
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

They could keep read-only access to the discussion but can’t add new ideas or change existing ideas.

Criticism of #3071Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Maybe you remove them because you don’t even want them to be able to see anything.

Criticism of #3074
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Permanent access: once added, you can’t remove them.

Criticism of #3071Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

If you later realize that adding someone was a mistake, you should be able to correct that mistake.

Criticism of #3075
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

How would you notify participants of changes to the privacy setting?

Criticism of #2728Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP revised 4 days ago·#3118
5th of 5 versions

The activity feed already shows updates to discussions. Could just include changes to the privacy setting there. And, whenever the privacy setting does change, notify participants of the change.

Criticism of #3108
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP, about 10 hours ago·#3135

This is done as of 9b5788c but it’s still free for now. Will make it a paid feature after some more testing and polishing.