Seriously what's that idea?
-
This isn't about me, this is about what people from persecuted minorities have told me they need, when I bought this exact argument to them.
I used to say what you're saying them they described to be the harassment that they face
But they’re not being harassed because they can’t see it…..
-
What I'd really like is if comment downvotes were public.
Edit: Thanks to Optional, here are the users who downvoted this comment (also lists users who upvoted).
People who only socialize online are often too cowardly to handle it, as they use downvotes sometimes as a way to disagree/show their disapproval without standing by it, and would be terrified if they had to explain why they did so.
-
I don’t -it’s the replies TO the blocked user I’d like to see.
Then don't block them.
-
What I'm saying also protects vulnerable communities at least a little, and what you're saying leaves them vulnerable.
If they're able to comment on my content I'm my communities, then I need to be able to see if they're spreading misinformation about me to my friends and acquaintances. Rather than just blind myself to that, I'd rather put barriers between my content and their ability to do that.
Imo protecting people from harassment is more important than protecting my ability to combat misinformation on some strangers' posts.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It’s not your content when you’re posting it in public forums. It’s public content.
If you want to be able to see when people spread “misinformation” about you, don’t block people.
-
You can go and make your own instance and do all of these things, and are encouraged to do so.
I think that's what this all boils down to. That user seems to want to have access to admin tools like banning users but doesn't want to go through the hassle of actually administering an instance server.
Yeah, this is just a wild take so far. They keep rolling out that it needs to happen to protect minorities from harassment, but don't elaborate, at all. Not how having clearly abusable tools in the hands of every user would help, not on who the minority group is and how they are being harmed (just that they are! and are upset about it!), and instead of elaborating in anyway on this they just keep making up augments against them that no one has made.
They need to just make there own community at the very least. Its not hard, and would give them all the power they want and are asking for. But I assume since it would not give them the people automatically they will not.
-
The worst part IMO is that if they commented anywhere in the chain you're blocked from that entire chain. Say you're having a nice conversation back and forth about something, then they reply to the original comment (not even seeing you) now you're blocked from the entire thread of comments.
-
If I block them, I want to stop them from engaging with me.
I don't want to let them continue to engage with me and other people in my comments, but just lose my ability to see what they're saying about me.
That's like saying the purpose of a locked door isn't to keep people out, it's to prevent you from seeing what they're doing in your house
You don’t get to make that decision.
-
This is how it should work. You block someone so you don’t have to see them. Why do you care if they can reply to you if you can’t see it?
It seems a little unfair though because it changes the way the conversation looks to the outside doesn't it? If the other person can't see your reply to you then you can just lie in your comment and people will think you're telling the truth since they didn't bother to refute it. Hell someone tried to do that to me once. Thankfully while I couldn't see them directly I could see them in the Post history for some reason so I was able to edit my comment to set the record straight. I blocked them for harassment by the way so it makes total sense that they were doing that.
The middle ground seems to be that if someone's blocked you you should be able to see their comments but not reply directly. That way if you want to comment based on what they said you can just not with a direct reply to them.
-
I'd call that "muting" rather than blocking.
And it leaves vulnerable communities open to abuse, because they're unable to police their communities and kick out harassers.
Do those communities not have mods? Oh they do? Report them if they’re breaking the rules then. If they’re not breaking the rules then you just need to harden up.
You need to harden up even if they are breaking the rules though.
-
Ok, lets walk though this. You have spoke with people from marginalized communities that get regularly harassed, correct?
Then please explain it to us the way it was explained to you. After all it convinced you about the value in speech control, a very high bar for most rational people to overcome.
But here is the thing, you have not. You have just stated over and over that this is a needed feature to "protect" marginalized groups. You have not even hinted at the group (hell it could be that its some hexbear talking point or that there is no group at all). And no, naming a marginalized group who sees regular harassment is not an issue, unless the group in question's very existence is offensive. Although there are a lot of nuances between what is and is not offensive, there are still some clear lines (think about say furries being ok vs the man boy love association being not ok).
Also criticism is not harassment, if you feel you are being harassed then use the report button. But don't get upset if not everyone else agrees with you.
Then please explain it to us the way it was explained to you.
*crickets chirping*
-
Exactly, its why modlog and communities that exist just to bring up mod issues are a needed part of a healthy fediverce.
The idea that someone should be able to control what another user types without oversite is just megakaren levels of entitlement over others.
Unfortunately pretty much every single mod hides their username on the mod logs, and usually give the most vague ban reasons possible.
-
They shouldn't be able to do that!
If I block someone, and one of their posts or comments gets reported for moderation, it won't allow the moderation tools to work. I have to un-block them to moderate them.
-
Unfortunately pretty much every single mod hides their username on the mod logs, and usually give the most vague ban reasons possible.
True, but you can see who mods what community and it means hiding there name is often pointless. I do agree that the name should be on the modlog though.
-
This is why I don’t block, I just passively ignore.
I want to watch idiots shout into the void. No interaction, no downvotes, nothing. Their impotent rage makes me smile as I move on. That’s my fetish.
Same. I tell some idiots that I’m going to block them and then just stop replying and enjoy watching them chuck a tantrum haha
-
I could do it at 48/h, js
Fuck you!
I was first!
rofl
-
It seems a little unfair though because it changes the way the conversation looks to the outside doesn't it? If the other person can't see your reply to you then you can just lie in your comment and people will think you're telling the truth since they didn't bother to refute it. Hell someone tried to do that to me once. Thankfully while I couldn't see them directly I could see them in the Post history for some reason so I was able to edit my comment to set the record straight. I blocked them for harassment by the way so it makes total sense that they were doing that.
The middle ground seems to be that if someone's blocked you you should be able to see their comments but not reply directly. That way if you want to comment based on what they said you can just not with a direct reply to them.
Who cares how it looks to others. If you have to have the last word then don’t block them.
-
Then please explain it to us the way it was explained to you.
*crickets chirping*
My mind is going in overdrive thinking of the possibilities on this. This is like the argument equivalent of trying to pay with an IOU. "I have the best reasons, but you don't know them as they live in another country" sort of stuff.
I am thinking there are a few possibilities (please add if you can, this is fun):
- There is no group in question and its just a lame tool to try and win an argument.
- The group in question did/does have issues with harassment, but does not have an opinion on this exact thing (so they are not being named as the poster knows they will not get support)
- The group is so very unpopular that the very mention of them will lower the credibility of the poster (hexbear, pedophiles, people who don't put their carts back, etc.)
- The group is not being harassed at all, but like the poster does not like that people can criticize them
-
Ok, lets walk though this. You have spoke with people from marginalized communities that get regularly harassed, correct?
Then please explain it to us the way it was explained to you. After all it convinced you about the value in speech control, a very high bar for most rational people to overcome.
But here is the thing, you have not. You have just stated over and over that this is a needed feature to "protect" marginalized groups. You have not even hinted at the group (hell it could be that its some hexbear talking point or that there is no group at all). And no, naming a marginalized group who sees regular harassment is not an issue, unless the group in question's very existence is offensive. Although there are a lot of nuances between what is and is not offensive, there are still some clear lines (think about say furries being ok vs the man boy love association being not ok).
Also criticism is not harassment, if you feel you are being harassed then use the report button. But don't get upset if not everyone else agrees with you.
oh hey, fuck you
here is part of the conversation I had where I was convinced. Forgive me for not remembering all of the specifics, it was 2 years ago, and I failed to ask for the credentials as a minority. It took me a while to search it up.
the conversation wasn't just about blocking, it was about how private social networks should be. I was saying that they should be default public, and users should have no expectation of privacy, and then this person explained how problematic that is for people who get persecuted, and why simply muting problematic people isn't sufficient.
The whole conversation is branching IIRC so just walking up the context one comment at a time might not give the full story.can I explain it like they did? no. I'm not a minority, and this conversation was fucking 2 years ago. I've explained it the best i could, but since you think I'm lying or (god forbid) engaging in a post on hexbear, then you can go and fucking read the conversation for yourself. If you're not happy with their explanation, feel free to necro the post, but it was enough to convince me that just saying "shit is public and you can't expect to be able to prevent people from interacting with your content" isn't sufficient.
-
a common response I've been getting is "blocking doesn't work, they just need to make a new account"
but then they say "if its really a problem, then they just need to report the user"
but if making a new account would defeat blocking, then making a new account would defeat reporting a user. its either effective in both places or neither place. -
As a point of reference, on Bluesky, it appears that if you're blocked, you cannot see the account that blocked you. Essentially they just disappeared. They've not visible in search either.
So, unless you create another account, they ceased to exist.
Just to be clear, as far as I can tell, this invisibility is mutual as soon as one account blocks the other.
This is why I use the block button and block lists frequently on Bluesky and not at all here. Actually does its job there.
