Correct way to do CW on Friendica?
Not that I usually put any warnings on my posts anywhere, or feel I have a reason to, and suspect filtering is far more useful for people who are triggered by certain topics, but I'm a little confused about how to correctly do Content Warning/Notices on Friendica?
The compose editor has a button that says "Content Warning" but it creates an [abstract] BBcode, which when used appears to make that content completely disappear on Friendica (though if you go to "Edit" it will still be there).
The [spoiler] BBcode appears to work like the Content Warnings do on Mastodon, plus you can add to it WHY you are hiding the content. But how do those look on other platforms?
Jeff
in reply to Random Penguin • • •In Settings->Additional Features->Post composition, in the explanation of the "Add an abstract from ActivityPub content warnings" check box, it says, "Abstracts are displayed as content warning on systems like Mastodon or Pleroma."
I have found this to be the case. I have also found that, while the abstract text will not appear at all in the preview while editing, it does appear when I actually publish the post. On Friendica I see the abstract in bold text (and it does not behave like a content warning). In Mastodon it does behave as a content warning. My understanding is that Friendica does not treat it as a content warning because it is assumed that Friendica users will use filters to avoid seeing things. There is much more information about abstracts under Help/UserManual/General Functions - First Steps/BB Code Tag Reference.
Carlos Solís
in reply to Jeff • • •abstractandspoilertags with the same content, to have it be correctly hidden both on Friendica and Mastodon? Maybe even nesting one inside of the other?Marcus
in reply to Random Penguin • • •github.com/friendica/friendica…
Matthias 🇪🇺
in reply to Marcus • • •If I understand correctly, then that's settled. However, the project is initially focusing on the stable release.
@Michael 🇺🇦
Random Penguin
in reply to Marcus • • •Tobias makes a good point in that thread that how am I, as an author, supposed to guess what might "trigger" some random person reading what I wrote? The burden should be on the random person to set up filters so they reduce the likelihood they'll see anything they know might trigger them. Because I can't possibly know that! Which is why I pretty much never use CWs and if someone doesn't like it that's their problem.
I really don't want to join in on that thread, but after reading it I have to wonder why nobody mentioned the idea of using
[spoiler]for a CW and leave[abstract]for a summary? Spoiler already collapses on Friendica just like CWs do on Mastodon. It would avoid having to add a network parameter to[abstract]to determine whether it appears as a summary or CW. It seems like an obvious solution to me. Just make spoilers = CW and be done with it?Matthias 🇪🇺
in reply to Random Penguin • • •@Random Penguin @Marcus
The abstract has a history. It was used to create a summary to send to other networks when they had a character limit. This makes sense when a post is 500 or 1000 characters long.
However, the summary can also be what its meaning implies. Friendica will provide both options with Michael's issues.
CW is extremely controversial. Even on Mastodon. The sender cannot know what might trigger someone. That is something the recipient must filter out.
Random Penguin
in reply to Matthias 🇪🇺 • • •Still, the intention of a spoiler and a CW are essentially the same, to hide content from someone that may upset them, and spoiler collapses on Friendica just like CWs collapse on Mastodon.
If abstract's intention is only as a summary then that should be all it does. Just because it has been used for CWs is no reason to keep using it for that if it doesn't make any sense, which IMO it doesn't.
Matthias 🇪🇺
in reply to Random Penguin • • •@Random Penguin
The spoiler works differently
You should not continue reading if you do not want to know the ending of the film beforehand.
Reveal/hide
There is a happy ending.Random Penguin
in reply to Matthias 🇪🇺 • • •Matthias 🇪🇺
in reply to Random Penguin • • •@Random Penguin
The fact that abstracts are now hidden was Friendica's response to the CW implementation in Mastodon. The spoiler was used instead.
Mastodon took the easy route. The projects responded.
You don't have to like it, and it will be fixed by the issues. But that's the story.
Random Penguin
in reply to Matthias 🇪🇺 • • •I may have missed something in that issues thread, but it sounded like Mastodon a summary tag converted from a bare
[abstract]is now treated as a CW while[abstract=apub]is treated as an actual summary? That's still unnecessarily confusing when the[spoiler]code is right there and literally does exactly the same thing as a CW.I rarely use CWs even on Mastodon and never use abstracts on Friendica. Anyway, I'm done arguing about it. I really don't care how my posts look on other platforms.
Matthias 🇪🇺
in reply to Random Penguin • • •That's a question you should ask those who have misused the feature. Friendica continues to communicate with various networks that have a problem with long texts. I use the summary feature regularly.
Kāpitan
in reply to Random Penguin • • •wilhelm
in reply to Random Penguin • • •Cătă
in reply to Random Penguin • • •[abstract][/abstract]tags. The CW gets seen by others.[spoiler][/spoiler]seems to only work with networks that support more types of content formatting than Mastodon, basically. I.e. in Hubzilla it works, in Lemmy it should work (but it's buggy), in Piefed it should also work but I never checked.