# Nov 16, 2023 / 🔒 Entity permissions (experimental)

**URL:** <https://community.fibery.io/t/nov-16-2023-entity-permissions-experimental/5414>\
**Category:** Changelog\
**Created:** [November 16, 2023, 4:37pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/nov-16-2023-entity-permissions-experimental/5414 "2023-11-16T16:37:19Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 36

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![aoe](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.fibery.io/aoe/32/6018_2.png) [@aoe](https://community.fibery.io/u/aoe)\
**Post date:** [March 7, 2024, 8:03am UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/nov-16-2023-entity-permissions-experimental/5414/36 "2024-03-07T08:03:20Z")

</div>

> [@antoniokov](#):
>
> > [@aoe](#):
> >
> > I’m simply trying to let you know, that when you set access templates to only include certain relations, it comes with the expectation that only those relations are visible. Does that make sense?
> 
> It does!
> 
> For us, simplifying the UI for people with less access comes as a natural next step after introducing granular access. For example, the left menu is now basically useless for users without Space access, and we’re gonna address this as well as the cluttered Entity View and anything else that hinders adoption.

Hi @antoniokov!

Any news on this one? It’s mostly this part which is holding us back from inviting clients 🙂

> [@aoe](#):
>
> _What I did expect_ (or want to happen) is that the user interface groups would be hidden in the user interface. The reason being that we could have relation names that we don’t want to have exposed. It would also create an overall less cluttered experience.  
> ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/uploads/fibery/original/2X/5/5040797e05c914eab71dd560725097fd16752d12.png)

And also this [issue](https://community.fibery.io/t/a-guest-user-can-see-invite-all-existing-users-in-a-workspace/5948) (bug?)

---

_[View the full topic](https://community.fibery.io/t/nov-16-2023-entity-permissions-experimental/5414)._