If you post in a channel that does not have @U055W814A or @UFNE73UF4 it won't get added to the ClojureVerse log or Zulipchat respectively. We had such complaints from folks -- before we got the sponsored plan from Slack -- about Slack not being searchable that not having the public logs was a big issue for a lot of folks.

There are some channels that do not have those bots in -- and we could certainly add some more "personal" channels if folks feel the need (and some folks would have to keep an eye on them to make sure no one later added those bots!).

How do I know which channels have those?

You'd have to look in the members' list for those channels... #CEK0B0CH5 doesn't have those bots, for example...

(and I just added a note to the topic/description of that channel to not add logging bots there)

There's a #C1K1S09L3 channel that doesn't have the logging bots either.

So to clarify it is under "Intergrations", and not "Members".

<Right-click {channel-name}>
--> View channel details
--> Integrations
--> <Bots are listed there>

From a quick perusal through a number of channels, it looks like these bots must be enabled by default, only disabled if a channel manager proactively chooses to make things private. Although the main topic of my sharing happens to be related to mental health, my primary motivation is to "out myself" to people I recently interacted with and expect to continue interacting with on a regular basis in the future. The more-specific goals being: 1. Provide some potentially-useful added context for my points of view in general. 2. Be extremely open, for the sake of familiarity and "bonding", to the extent that public chat allows for that. 3. If I am fortunate enough to find #2 invokes positive friend-ly interactions, then maybe...possibly consider asking for some not-just-advice types of assistance from the-community-as-a-whole, from a position of friendship (and not as a plea for sympathy). I am prepared to accept some level of "public" exposure, beyond the target audience of people I interact with regularly. But for the level of sharing I am considering, I think "the entire internet" is just way too far. Sure. Diving into the #mental-health channel hides me from the internet. I just don't think it exposes me to nearly enough of the "people I interact with regularly" to even begin to accomplish my primary goals in sharing, which are, rephrased in fewer words: 1. Sharing personal context around opinions. 2. Openness to people I am spending time with.

The bots are not turned on by default. Someone has to consciously invite them into a channel to enable logging to each place.

The bots can also be removed from a channel without making the channel private. I just checked both of those things.

(hard for me to tell if anyone can remove an integration from a channel or only admins or the person who added it... since I'm the workspace owner and have near-god permissions)

> The bots are not turned on by default. ... Interesting. I guess logging must just be very popular. Even an obscure channel like #heroku has the logbot (though the first one I found without the zulip-mirror-bot.).

Yeah, folks here were very keen to have nearly all channels logged 🙂

> The bots can also be removed from a channel without making the channel private. I meant "private" as in privacy, not as "private channel".

Ah, gotcha...

Public logging is definitely a double-edged sword. Logging to Zulipchat isn't quite as problematic (since you still need a Clojurians Zulipchat account to read it). I think there are several channels that really don't need public logging at this point, given the sponsored Slack Pro plan enables "private" searching fully. But of course if we lose the sponsorship, we'll lose the searchability internally.

Apologies in advance if I'm misunderstanding the gist of this thread but, while I don't believe there are any guarantees of privacy on the internet, there are other internet-based options such as email which can be one-to-many communication with the sender requesting that the communication be kept private. But back to my original statement...there are no guarantees. 🙂 Obviously the downside to this approach is you have to know everyone's email address. Then again, there's always room in our lives for a new app...right? 😁

@U01040R5CJY Thank you for your input. But I concur you are misunderstanding the gist. The idea is that I am mostly comfortable with the open nature of the Clojurians Slack Workspace... ...but recording those Slack channels to a fully public internet archive just goes too far for me not to cringe deeply at trying to share. If the issue could be reasonably resolved by targeting my message(s) to a specific list of users, then I see no reason why the privacy of a multi-user Direct Message would not suffice.

(and the answer is "no" -- both bots would need to be updated to support some sort of "don't log me" flag, and even then I am pretty sure neither bot understands threads so any replies in a thread would still get logged, unless everyone replying was careful to also include that flag in each relevant message)

And it just occurred to me that folks can quote parts of messages and share messages into other channels so even if there was a way to flag an individual message as being "don't log me", folks could undermine that by quoting/sharing elsewhere in Slack...

> And it just occurred to me that folks can quote parts of messages and share messages into other channels That would just have to be a risk to take. But your previous message does not look promising. 😞