Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Comments on Proposal: remove Twitter from profiles

Parent

Proposal: remove Twitter from profiles

+10
−2

Seeing the option to list a Twitter profile on one's profile leaves a bad taste in my mouth given recent developments on that site.

I don't think it deserves to be promoted above other social media websites. Why have an input box for your Twitter handle, but not your Truth Social handle? (I'm being facetious to make the point).

Discord kinda makes sense, since the chat channels are on there, but I think Twitter has lost any special status it may have once had.

Proposal:

  • Kill the input box.
  • Add all previously input Twitter profile info to the ends of people's profiles (to avoid the problem of people not being able to modify/remove them once the input box is gone...).

e.g.

Twitter: [@previouslyInputProfileName](https://twitter.com/previouslyInputProfileName)
History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

We originally envisioned free-form links, so you could specify the platform and the username/link/wha... (4 comments)
Post
+9
−2

I am not a big social media user. I have a LinkedIn account (2 actually, because I have no reason to pay for it so that I can merge accounts) and hardly use it. I have a Discord account and don't even know my user tag since I almost exclusively use it for Codidact. I tried Twitter once, so I probably have a username...but never use it. I don't have a Facebook account. etc. You get the idea.

But this really raises the issue that there is nothing special about Twitter. For the moment, there is something special about Discord with respect to the primary Codidact instance, because that is the location for chat. But another Codidact instance (private, or public but run by a different organization) might have nothing to do with Discord. I don't know the current configuration, but IMHO, the proper way to do this is:

  • A table of profile alternate account definitions
  • Each one includes name, description, input sample value and status (active, read-only, inactive). Active = normal, read-only if you want to turn something off without removing existing data (so allow a user to delete but not add or update) and inactive would get rid of it (but keep the user profile data in the database in case the community changes its mind).
  • Each user profile includes optional fields for each of those accounts

Then each instance can make a decision based on any security, political, cultural or other reasons. Some people don't currently like Twitter - OK, remove it. A Codidact instance in some countries might say "absolutely no Tik Tok". Others might say "absolutely no Facebook". A private instance might even include a good old fashioned email address - we don't do that on the primary public Codidact instance as that is considered private information, but in a different context, such as a corporate internal site, that may be 100% appropriate.

The current primary instance then has 3 account definitions:

  • Website - A link to anywhere on the internet for your stuff. - https://...
  • Twitter - Your Twitter username, if you've got one you want to share. - @username
  • Discord - Your Discord user tag, in the format username#1234. - username#1234

And if @ArtOfCode says "that's how we're doing it already" then my answer is obsolete.

Once this is all in the database rather than hardcoded (again, maybe it already is), any decision as to whether to turn off Twitter (or make it read-only) for this instance of Codidact becomes a community decision and not a technical one, and becomes a change that can be done as a simple database setting without any code changes.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

Community vs network level (3 comments)
Community vs network level
Mithical‭ wrote 11 months ago

It might even make sense to have this be adjustable on a community-level basis, not just network-level. For instance, the TTRPG community could have a Roll20 account field, while Software Dev has GitHub.

da5nsy‭ wrote 11 months ago

I had assumed that was what manassehkatz‭ meant, but now I read back their answer they do indeed talk about "instances". Is an instance a collection of communities? (I'd love to both get a technical understanding, and make sure I'm using the right terminology)

manassehkatz‭ wrote 11 months ago

An instance is a collection of communities run on one server (or set of servers) with one database and one group of administrators (though there may be different moderators for each community). While this could be per-community, I think it makes sense to be per-instance, as it is common to use the same profile across communities.