@unwriter is on PowPing!

PowPing is a place where you can earn Bitcoin simply by socializing, for FREE.
Never tried Bitcoin? It's OK! Just come, socialize, and earn Bitcoin.
Check out unwriter's activities

Team PowPing

visit channel home
Total Economy: 0.24 USD
Which do you prefer, and why? (The "why" part is important) 1. The channel member list is kept private (This is how it works right now). 2. The channel member list is displayed publicly. Your feedback matters, both from channel admins and ordinary users. Would appreciate any perspective.
Thank you for all the answers everyone. The problem with some disagreements is because different people see different things in the channel concept. Some people see public forums in a channel. Some people see membership groups in a channel. Public forums and membership groups are completely different creatures and serve different purposes. Instead of picking one side, the goal is to provide a flexible platform that will let anyone build their own experience. But most importantly, regardless of which privacy settings are added, channels should never betray the original expectation of the subscribers. I wrote a bit more about this here: https://powping.com/posts/63ae283daa348d75be06ad2438c6ade21deef3a843225777082cec89a3e15335
I think must be an option for the channel creator
From the perspective of an ordinary user, I'd prefer a private list, but hold your beer: ordinary users can choose whether they would like their followers to know of their being a member of a list. So for instance, in this case, my followers may or may not see my name on a channel, which is totally up to me, the reason being that I may be totally open about a channel I'm in, while with other channels where more personal discussions are held, I may wish to keep them a bit less public. Good question, unwriter :D
ercfre tipped:
0.14 USD
1 year ago
nowayfolding replied:
Boom. I like this. Let the user decide who gets to see them.
ercfre replied:
This idea is great! Furthermore I feel it illustrates the power of what I will call: Fractal Architecting Which I suppose can be defined as something like, “Designing systems with the goal of nurturing self-similarity up and down the layers of a system.” I take your idea to be an example of this because one thing that I (the user) like about operating on the BSV protocol is the ownership and control I have over the experience. Based on the conversations I’ve seen in here, this sense of ownership is a selling point for many of us. Your solution to the management of channel display (public or private) rejects the premise entirely and offers a third way that, to my eyes, resembles core aspects of the BSV protocol itself. Namely more control, choice, and a fundamental ownership of the experience. Something that is not often found on the internet today. As we come to understand more and more of the nuances present in the base layer (the BSV protocol) we can then work to cultivate this self-similarity in more and more areas, both big and small, as we build out and find ourselves needing to make design choices. What’s more, understanding this phenomenon can then help us learn to “break the rules” where we find appropriate... imbuing the things we build with character and unique flavor. The BSV protocol is pro-choice (no, not in that way, hah) and there might be a certain elegance that emerges from its apps, settings, and even users themselves being pro-choice too. [holds after the inhale] “It’s just choices all the way down man.” Thanks for your contribution. I love it.
Optional per user @ subscription time ? [think tick-box]
I would like to add more channel admins someday.
I would like to have the following options: Create a public channel where every member is visible in a members list. Both the admin and users can see the members list. Create a public channel where both the admin and the members cannot see the members list Create a private channel where only the admin can see the members list, and people can only join by invite.
Private.
I think theres a reasonable argument that admins should be able to see the list of subscribers, just from the point of view of knowing and understanding the subscribers a little bit more. I don't think it should be a public list.
As the admin of a group, I would like to be able to know and contact those in it. But they could still be private to those outside the group.
911 replied:
As the admin, what are you planning on doing with that data besides solicite them?
thecloudgallery replied:
Having a real, private conversation with the members.
911 replied:
I think that you can message members who post in the channel but people should be allowed to lurk in private.
thecloudgallery replied:
“Lurk” is very appropriate. Isn’t a fake name (avatar) + a private moneybutton enough of a firewall for users to Lurk behind?
2. The channel member list is displayed publicly.
I think private because you get public if you post something.
they want privacy huh ? all your data are public but you want privacy... public-private partnership! but no democracy public-private good because we dont want powping to be like twetch where all the boss get all the like 😎😎😎
Private. Because I want independent thinkers to join. And some people may not necessarily want to let others to know they are in. I think this will be important when a forum moves onto a paid/membership model. However, for free forums in future, you may want to provide an option setting to display all channel members. For your info, YouTube has an option to disable "view count".
nenicloud tipped:
0.02 USD
1 year ago
john tipped:
0.08 USD
1 year ago
nenicloud replied:
I agree with you@kenshishido
john replied:
Ken makes a great point here, let the "owner" of the channel decide if it's going to be private or public, and whether to charge admission or not. That's what I'd do.
could you leave the option up to the user? i.e. they can decide in their settings if they want to showcase which channels they are a part of?
Private. Don’t need to know who is inside to join a channel. Don’t need others seeing every one of my interests via a quick lookup. Think about it from Facebook’s standpoint. They sell this info to 3rd parties— will powping?
adonsats replied:
yeah! Pow ping is a soul saler 🤓
unwriter replied:
> They sell this info to 3rd parties— will powping? Nope, the whole reason for encoding everything in Bitcoin transactions is so that users will ultimately have control. This is not at all apparent at the moment, but it will become more clear in the future.
john tipped:
0.02 USD
1 year ago
john replied:
I hear you, and thanks for the vision@unwriter, looking forward to seeing what you have coming down the pike. I have my own idea of how data SHOULD be put on chain (clearly or I wouldn't have written this article: https://sym.re/oavobE on a perhaps non-standard view of OP_0 OP_RETURN methodology), and so far I think@powping is the closest to what I'm envisioning of the future of BitCoin. AKA, not all data is chain-worthy, and that's a GOOD thing.
Ordinary user: private is best
private
If it is either or, privacy wins... it allows all to join
Keep it private. The only purpose for wanting to see it is for the purpose of using that data to make money.