Private Messaging on discuss.flarum.org ?

jordanjay29

MikeJones we actually have Flagrow Byobu installed, but we've restricted it to mod/admin use. We want to make sure it doesn't become an avenue for spam, so future plans include creating (or using a community created) an extension for post-based groups to ensure that users have to be established here first before they can use private messages.

MikeJones

jordanjay29 haha, guess I just don't know how to use it lol

jordanjay29

MikeJones I think you may have misunderstood. The only members on this forum that can start a private message are mods and admins. If you receive one, you can reply, but you cannot start one.

MikeJones

jordanjay29 that all makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up

luceos

To add to the above, Byobu private discussions was intentionally installed only for moderation uses. We use it to pull members of the community aside in case we'd like to point out or clarify items from our community guidelines.

bavard

It's been a couple of time where I wanted to PM someone here but couldn't. It's unfortunate that good users have to pay for spamers, it's like eating CAPTCHA everyday.

luceos

bavard you could check on discord to see if that user is also active there.. https://flarum.org/discord/

We've been considering opening up DM's to other members too by the way, we just need to confirm this is a good thing to do.

MichaelBelgium

luceos we just need to confirm this is a good thing to do.

Why wouldn't it be? We already can see a tease but no permissions ☹️

in-just

I was part of a community years ago that had issues with members sharing illicit images of their girlfriends. It literally had nothing to do with what the community was centered around so it was a bit of a shock.

Anyways my point in bringing it up is that personally I have no plans to implement a private messaging system for my forum but rather just link them to a 3rd party messenger like facebook. This way it eliminates responsibility of monitoring any nonsense that goes on privately.

Kyrne

in-just I'm not too familiar with European laws so I'm not going to comment on those, but here in America we have the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996. The important part is in Section 230 which states "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"

In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular ISPs, but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content.

If it weren't for this law, Twitter/Facebook/YouTube could be charged for the occasional terrorist video or other illegal act that is uploaded to the site.

The only way you could get in trouble because of said content is if you 1) were aware of it and 2) failed to take it down. If you were never aware of it (if it was encrypted or you were otherwise unable to see it) you can't be held liable.

This is another reason I'm making my new private messaging ext encrypted. It prevents forum admins from being held responsible for messages sent between users.

[deleted]

Kyrne It prevents forum admins from being held responsible for messages sent between users.

Not sure how this would stand up in court to be honest. If there's no way for a user to report inappropriate usage of the messaging system to an admin, and, in turn, no way for the admin to view that message, then you land up with a catch 22 situation in the sense that neither side can satisfy the requirement (user and admin).

The content itself which is deemed offensive, harmful, etc is housed on the resource where the admin has the responsibility. Most regulators will adopt this stance making it very difficult to both comply, and protect at the same time.

My personal view is that no message should be encrypted when logged in as an admin, and therefore, no expectation of privacy should be enforced so that the owner of such forums can comply with the law.

Kyrne

[deleted] In a court of law, you have to prove someone is guilty. Someone accusing you of whatever crime would have to prove that you were able to access the messages and did not take any action. If there is literally no way for you to access it there is no way they could prove it.

I would like to raise a question then. How is apple not held responsible for messages sent over their encrypted iMessage service? WhatsApp when terrorists plan attacks on their platform. Protonmail when illegal photos are sent over the email.

[deleted]

Kyrne because Apple iMessage can easily use the argument that they do not store the content - it resides on remote devices. The same probably applies for Proton Mail

In this use case, the messages are being stored on the server or instance which makes the owner liable both directly and indirectly.

jordanjay29

MichaelBelgium Maybe soon.