Yeah, this. I suspect that any sort of read-security here has to be viewed through a "best effort" lens. That's far from ideal (especially because some people will just not read the warnings), but it may be worth having on the grounds of being better than not having it at all.
That said, I suspect that having read restrictions only makes sense if there is also a concept of "locked" posts, that are only visible to authenticated users. That's still very weak security, but might be worthwhile.
It becomes much more feasible if there is some opt-in concept of "membership" in a community -- basically private groups. That's definitely getting away from the Usenet roots, but it might be worth providing space for the idea in the architecture, since it's a common use case for smaller communities. I'm a fan of doing things in public, but not everything always belongs there.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2023-06-20 12:41 pm (UTC)Yeah, this. I suspect that any sort of read-security here has to be viewed through a "best effort" lens. That's far from ideal (especially because some people will just not read the warnings), but it may be worth having on the grounds of being better than not having it at all.
That said, I suspect that having read restrictions only makes sense if there is also a concept of "locked" posts, that are only visible to authenticated users. That's still very weak security, but might be worthwhile.
It becomes much more feasible if there is some opt-in concept of "membership" in a community -- basically private groups. That's definitely getting away from the Usenet roots, but it might be worth providing space for the idea in the architecture, since it's a common use case for smaller communities. I'm a fan of doing things in public, but not everything always belongs there.