[Enhancement] Allow batch state changes

[s38b35M5]

[Enhancement] Allow batch state changes

[mouse-reeve]

Hmm, we actually probably shouldn't let people edit the privacy of activities at all -- while we could theoretically change who can see it on the home instance, it won't change on other instances, so it's quite misleading to imply that someone could make a previously public post private

[mouse-reeve]

It's still not going to work the way that one could reasonably expect. For example, it still wouldn't be sent out to remote instances that previously didn't receive it. It's less problematic, but still can't function in the way that would make sense

[hughrun]

Shelves, statuses, and lists have visibility, but books themselves don't. That is, you can set who can see a status. And you can set who can see whether a shelf exists which books are in it. But the visibility of a book in terms of its relationship to a particular user is only via a status, list or a shelf and these are independent of each other.

It sounds like what you're talking about here is shelf visibility?

[s38b35M5]

I mean the status update events that comprise my "Activity" feed, especially those related to book read status change (Apologies if I am not at my best explaining this, I'm very ill this week). On joining, I wanted Bookwyrm to be just for me, but I decided that I wanted to share my read books in the event that anyone was interested. I realized that to change my activity events' visibility, I could only do this one at a time, by editing the event.

[s38b35M5]

Hmm, we actually probably shouldn't let people edit the privacy of activities at all -- while we could theoretically change who can see it on the home instance, it won't change on other instances, so it's quite misleading to imply that someone could make a previously public post private

That makes sense.

What about the inverse, like in my use-case, where I was over-cautious in the beginning, and decided I wanted to open up the privacy of most of my shared activity, going from private to public?

[s38b35M5]

Then it probably does make sense to consider removing the option to change visibility, and perhaps consider adding some text/disclaimer for the purpose of user-education as the visibility is most important when the event is created.

Perhaps also it should be considered to present a visibility option on event creation for the hypothetical user that might only want to share on the local instance, or to members of the local instance, or some flavor combination like that.

I realize I may be speaking of core parts of how activitypub works that aren't practical/feasible/realistic; just throwing it out there.