Platforms: This feature request applies to all platforms (Android, iOS, Desktop etc) Reason for Request: As Delta Chat is private-first by design, the current workflow doesn’t give the Channel Owner the choice to inform or not inform the Subscriber of their removal. The Channel Owner should have this choice, especially if the Subscriber gained access from someone else (not the Channel Owner). If the devs remove this message, then the Channel Owner will have the choice: inform the Subscriber that they were removed via a private chat, or, not inform at all (in the case that the Subscriber should not have access). Conclusion: This solves all all issues for Channel Owners regarding correct access and permissions administration.
Expected behavior
(Option-1) When the channel owner removes a Subscriber from the channel, there should be no message displayed to the Subscriber.
OR (Option-2) Have a toggle switch for the Owner in the channel preferences. The label could be “Inform subscriber when removed” ON/OFF (It should be OFF by default)
I think this option just makes things more complicated (more code)-- channel owners can simply just inform by private message.
Actual behavior
(See image) Currently a removed subscriber sees this message: “You were removed by -channel owner-”.
Not good, there’s no choice for the Channel Owner. If the Subscriber gained access incorrectly (not from the Channel Owner) and they know they were removed, they may just join the channel again! If they never knew they were removed, then the proper outcome is achieved.
Example Images
This image shows the current behaviour. Can we please remove all of the “You were removed by…” that is displayed to the Subscriber.
What you describe is (one half of) a shadow ban. What you would actually want is support for a simple ban: once the owner removes a subscriber, the same subscriber should not be able to join the same channel later. Resetting the invite link periodically would also be helpful for such a use case.
Thank you for your input re ‘simple ban’, that is also a good feature, but an ideal solution is my initial post - zero communication as the starting base. Imagine you invite a few people into your house for dinner, then one of the guests says something to you privately that you’re not comfortable with (this is an example of the Channel Owner’s reason for removal) - it’s your house and you decide not to invite that person ever again - you don’t owe them that communication or an explanation (it’s your house) - you simply don’t invite them again. The current set-up of the Delta Chat channel is that you (the owner of the house/channel) has been forced to communicate that the guest/subscriber is not allowed in your house anymore. I really think the options should be start from zero communication and step up from there. Example:
Step 1: Zero Communication Step 2: “You have been removed by” Step 3: Simple Ban Step 4: Block
I don’t think that you managed to uncover the root of the XY problem. I still maintain my above comment.
If a channel owner keeps posting every day, a subscriber will notice once no further updates will come in for them and as is, nothing prevents them from clicking on one of your previous channel invite links every day, making your proposal ineffective.
Also, the sole act of not sending updates for them does not stop them from continuing the behavior that you wanted to stop in the first place: sending you abusive comments in private messages! For that, the following would probably be a much better solution:
