Seriously what's that idea?
-
I see what you mean. Personally I'm gonna side with the folks that need the block functionality as a defense against stalking/harassment though.
The lead eater can ban anyone they want but that doesn't stop others from posting direct challenges to the lead eater's rhetoric elsewhere. I think its better to help those in need than to leave them vulnerable with less than ideal tools to protect themselves.
Apart from real world means, the best defence against stalking/harassment is to stop posting on a public account associated with the identity that's being stalked/harassed. If someone is that horrible to stalk you, they'll be more than capable of circumventing a block.
-
A lot of people here never had a stalker and it shows.
I don't think blocking is an effective measure.
-
If you're concerned about someone being able to see your activity, no blacklisting-based system --- which is what OP is talking about in terms of "blocking" would be -- on a system without expensive identifiers (which the Threadiverse is not and Reddit is not --- both let you make new accounts at zero cost) will do much of anything. All someone has to do is to just make a new account to monitor your activity. Or, hell, Reddit and a ton of Threadiverse instances provide anonymous access. Not to mention that on the Threadiverse, anyone who sets up an instance can see all the data being exchanged anyway.
In practice, if your concern is your activity being monitored, then you're going to have to use a whitelisting-based system. Like, the Fediverse would need to have something like invite-only communities, and the whole protocol would have to be changed in a major way.
You can choose to federate with a specific server. I believe some mastodon servers would honour requests to only share with specific accounts, but that's it.
You could possibly have some encryption key shenanigans go on at the client side and build it ontop of the fediverse. It might be possible.
-
The way Reddit does is abusive.
Yes, but counterpoint: it was also petty and satisfying as fuuuuck hammering someone with your last point and then blocking them so that after they write up their long-ass reply outlining why eugenics is the true path to a glorious white future, they end up getting an error message.
Yah, it was very bad for actual discourse, but that ship has sailed. people don't care about debate and discourse anymore, on almost every social media site people post things as stand-alone displays to viewers for points, never engaging with each other unless there's a contentious point that can be leveraged for up-arrows and thumbs.
We have to get back to talking to each other in real life and stop pretending having introversion or social anxiety is anything but an obstacle to community and a better world
Nah bro, let them have their schizo rant lol
-
I don't think blocking is an effective measure.
Precisely because blocking here doesn't do anything really. On a different platform the feature made me invisible to the person and it helped reduce their obsession with me massively. Out of sight out of mind is true for a lot of people.
-
lol ah the classic crybaby wannabe-fascist "paradox of tolerance" garbage. Just admit it, you can't handle people who have different beliefs and opinions to your own because you can't defend your own with any intelligence.
Classic leftist.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Ah, the actual fascist "nobody deserves to be safe" garbage. Just adjust it, you want to use your own personal freedoms as a cludge to undermine the rights of others.
Classic libertarian
-
I had a feeling playing the victim and name calling was coming next after your last message.
But just in case anyone arguing in good faith needs it spelled out: Not every thing has to cater to every audience. Lemmy, at least for me, is primarily for sharing information, whether news, opinions or just memes. On such a site, I believe it is more important to avoid echo chambers and misinformation. So it requires a moderator or an admin to ban people. It's not as if Lemmy is an unmoderated hellscape, it just leans more towards free speech over creating perfectly safe spaces than you may like. Avoiding echo chambers and misinformation benefits all users, including minorities. Therefore, every site hast to find a balance for it's use-case. I would expect many people, whether minorities or otherwise, can handle occasional mean words or words they disagree with on their screens. But it is also alright if you are more sensitive or not in a good place psychologically and don't want to deal with this. There are other places on the internet you can go, that do have the kind of blocking you want. Some places will lean towards free speech, some towards heavy moderation. That's the great thing about the internet, not every place has to be the same.
I'm sorry for the way I spoke
We're missing the point here though. People are dragging op through shit for wanting a totally reasonable thing to want.
Maybe Lemmy isn't going to provide it, but they don't deserve to be treated like this for just bringing up something that is pretty clearly confusing to people who dgaf about the underlying protocols
-
yes, we all want some censorship.
Speak for yourself.
defederation is censorship.
instance bans are censorship.
community bans are censorship.\
And I disagree with them.
is your position that none of those should be allowed?
My position is that it should all be up to the user. Let me block instances and communities if I don't want to see them. Let me choose what content I want to see. I don't need some mods deciding what is and isn't acceptable based on their ideologies and beliefs, because as we all know and see every day, most abuse that power almost all the time.
if so, thats a wild position to take, but you should say it with your full chest at least.
It's not wild at all, and I have never tried to hide it. I've said it openly many, many times on Lemmy. I think all censorship is bad. Only weak minded people want or need censorship.
Nice attempted "gotcha" though.
But that's the right off the mod and the admin to express themselves through blocking and defederation. It sounds like you're supporting compelled speech
-
Ok, so you've chosen 'we are both going to agree that perfect would be better than not perfect'.
For what it's worth, I'm not downvoting you.
But I will be blunt: I don't think you are capable of describing a coherent, implementable version of what you want.
What is your proposal for what, precisely, should be changed?
How are you, or ... apparently you would be asking other people to do this ... how is this change going to be compatible with lemmy as it currently exists, such that every instance could easily adopt it as an update... or... some instances could adopt it as a compatible sort of 'add-on' or 'plugin'?
Who is going to implement that change, or, how is that change going to come about?
Seeing that you don't appear to be willing to code this yourself... how are you going to convince someone else to do this?
What I am saying is 'OP actually does want an unreasonable thing, not from the standpoint of an end user of software who is.concerned about their safety in the abstract, but from the standpoint of being able to outline something that might actually work and also ever be designed.'
What they are asking for is more or less an entirely fundamentally different system than lemmy. They are asking for an entirely new kind of software that works from a fundamentally different paradigm.
Its more like uh, outlining that cars could be safer, and they think they are asking for airbags to be installed, but what they are actually asking for is someone to design a public transportation system.
Thats about the scale and scope of how mechanisticly different what they are asking for is, from how things curfently work... even though, to them, its just a 'way of how they get from point a to point b', and thus seems trivial to them.
The implementation serves the application, not the other way around.
Lemmy would still be Lemmy, if overnight all insurances miraculously switched to a different protocol that provides the same functionality.
To say that it's too difficult to implement is fair. I'd argue that this being so difficult would indicate a fundamental design flaw, rather than a user making an unreasonable request. Maybe a flaw was part of an intentional tradeoff, but that doesn't make it less of a flaw.
An I going to personally redesign activitypub? No.
I tried to read the spec and i disliked it enough to stop before I got very far into it. But although I dislike the spec, I like the apps people built on it. For the most part.
And I strongly disagree with the sentiment that feedback is only useful if it provides solutions. I dont think that it is bad for OP to point out that this is confusing and seemingly punitive to the blocker, even without offering to fix it themselves. -
The paradox of tolerance doesn't mean what you think it means.
The "paradox" is fully resolved if you have strong guarantees for the tolerance you care about: fundamental freedoms and equality, and punishments for those who attempt to subvert them. So you don't "tolerate" people who are in the process of dismantling that tolerance by advocating for or engaging directly in harassment of trans people (for example) but you also don't punish people who, for example, are opposed to trans women participating in womens' sports - because while equal participation ought to be a guaranteed matter of equality, we've also broadly agreed as a society that sports ought to be split, and the precise nature of that split is not a guaranteed matter of equality.
Applying this to Lemmy, there is no risk to tolerance in allowing a discussion about sex, gender and sports. There is a risk to tolerance in allowing a "discussion" in which trans people are generally disparaged on the basis of their transition, because it can lead to actions which go beyond mere speech.
To look at this another way, rather than linking a wikipedia page with a dumb insult and saying "try learning something", you'd be better off identifying the behaviour you don't want to see, what action you want to take about it, and why it's justified based on the consequences of not taking that action. "Tolerance" and "intolerance" are vague terms, so have a more productive discussion by being precise.
The "you care about" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
And while you're right, the guy is just a edgelord. Providing him with a nuanced and detailed take wasn't going to do anything.
-
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.
The same arguments apply, though.
Your version of blocking doesn't exactly handle the problem you're describing well, either, as someone wishing to spread hate or "off-screen harassment" can block their direct target which, under the model, will mean they can't see it, and then post.
To use a bit of hyperbole and a physical metaphor:
I can let them burn my effigy in my front yard, or I can force them to go burn it in their own neighborhood.
They're still burning the effigy and littering, but at least it's not outside my front door, scaring away all the people who come to visit me. -
If you can't see the replies how can you possibly be harassed by it?
Because they can spread lies about me that I can't see, to people who come to engage with me.
Not everyone is a stranger, you can have communities for real world groups.
-
So say someone is a raging bigot. You rely on regular users to flag up things that cross the line for moderators to deal with and correct the record when they lie or post stuff without context eg to provide a balanced perspective. Unless they have blocked most of the active users who would be liable to do these things.
But isn't the whole argument "that didn't work on Reddit"? I see a lot of people saying that reddit style blocking created echo chambers because they'd simply block people they were taking about so they couldn't defend themselves, but where were the mods there?
-
Looking at the post you reference the person you talked to is a transgender person who moderates both LGBTQ+ and Transfem in Lemmy.blahaj.zone, they provide more than enough evidence of their minority status, but that wasn't really needed. The question was what group was being harassed and thus this interaction would imply that the LGBTQ community is being harassed on Lemmy.
What I feel like you missed in your previous discussion is that the other person was talking about privacy in the context of being outed in the real world. The harassment being referred to was in the context of your real life identity being revealed or connected to your online conversation.
Under this context they are looking for a feature similar to how Facebook (at least previously) allowed you to pick who could see your post as you were posting it. That way you could individually disallow specific people or groups from seeing them.
This doesn't imply that the issue is that someone is being harassed on Lemmy and thus we need better blocking options. It's really only an issue for someone who wants to dox themselves and still have private conversations, in which case Lemmy and most online forums can't accomplish that natively across all instances/subreddits/groups. The only solution is to have a private instance with vetting and heavy moderation. If you don't dox yourself you can generally avoid the whole issue here.
Based on this I think you're making a different argument than what the block feature is or ever could be.
wrote last edited by [email protected]You're right, that was a different conversation. And I'm not part of that group so I can't say for sure.
What I'm trying to do is take what I learned there and extrapolate it. I think there is some overlap.
At the very least, I don't think OP deserves to be dragged like they were for what is to me a pretty reasonable take. In Lemmy, blocking someone acts like getting blocked on pretty much every platform, which is going to be confusing for many -
The implementation serves the application, not the other way around.
Lemmy would still be Lemmy, if overnight all insurances miraculously switched to a different protocol that provides the same functionality.
To say that it's too difficult to implement is fair. I'd argue that this being so difficult would indicate a fundamental design flaw, rather than a user making an unreasonable request. Maybe a flaw was part of an intentional tradeoff, but that doesn't make it less of a flaw.
An I going to personally redesign activitypub? No.
I tried to read the spec and i disliked it enough to stop before I got very far into it. But although I dislike the spec, I like the apps people built on it. For the most part.
And I strongly disagree with the sentiment that feedback is only useful if it provides solutions. I dont think that it is bad for OP to point out that this is confusing and seemingly punitive to the blocker, even without offering to fix it themselves.wrote last edited by [email protected]Ok, so we're still doing this apparently.
You are still at the 'this system is not perfect' stage, which I agreed with many comments ago in this chain... and you have no solution, as I predicted you would not.
Do you want me to just validate the your ability to identify a problem, endlessly?
Do you need me to praise your ability to identify something we both already agreed that we both identified, what, days ago now?
Lemmy would still be Lemmy, if overnight all insurances miraculously switched to a different protocol that provides the same functionality.
If an apple transformed into the same apple, it would be the same apple.
... What are you saying?
A protocol with the same functionality would be the same protocol, and would not include any new features, like the one you think it is reasonable to request be added.
You have said a tautology and don't realize it.
Further, it isn't a design flaw.
It is a design paradigm.
The current paradigm is geared toward many communicating with many, aka, a simulation of a grand public square.
The paradigm you seem to prefer would necessarily be geared toward few communicating with few.
It would be primarily exclusive and impermissive, whereas the system that exists is inclusive and permissive.
You saying this is all a 'design flaw' is like being unsatisfied that an automobile cannot fly.
If you wanna drive, get a car, if you wanna fly, get an airplane.
If you want to endlessly dote that it sure would be neat if a hover car existed, sure, ok, you can do that, I am not stopping you.
But unless you are taking practical steps to achieve a hover car, then you are fostering a literally unproductive conversation, by definition.
Broadly, nearly all the time, I very much agree that user feedback is indeed very valuable and should be taken seriously.
But in this instance, what is being requested is very likely impossible to implement without a total, foundation level rewrite of the entire system (which would break and destroy every app using it), or, would necessistate the creation of an entirely different system.
This is because the requested change is antithetical to the core foundation of how the system works.
This is an engineering problem, a software engineering problem.
More people than myself have tried to explain how this particular request is basically impossible to implement without basically doing a complete rewrite.
So again, in this instance of this particular request, it is a very unreasonable request, that is not likely to be accomodated.
There is likely no way to make a system that is both capable of being freely federated and defederated, which also, somehow, has a grand, overriding, centralized, authoritative and authoritarian, total ability to prevent any users anywhere in the system from being able to view any other particular user's posted content.
If you could design such a system that is somehow capable of this, that would be a revolutionary achievement in software engineering.
Failing that, we have to deal with the trade offs of different design paradigms.
You can have centralized control from the core of the system itself (and thus a core set of admins, who we all know never ever abuse their powers) and 'personal safety', or, you can have decentralized control in the hands of users and instance admins, and have only the safety of manually curating your own experience within the system.
When people ask for the kind of blocking system that we are talking about here, they do not realize they are asking for a centralized system, which is antithetical to the entire concept of what ActPub is.
-
Ok, so we're still doing this apparently.
You are still at the 'this system is not perfect' stage, which I agreed with many comments ago in this chain... and you have no solution, as I predicted you would not.
Do you want me to just validate the your ability to identify a problem, endlessly?
Do you need me to praise your ability to identify something we both already agreed that we both identified, what, days ago now?
Lemmy would still be Lemmy, if overnight all insurances miraculously switched to a different protocol that provides the same functionality.
If an apple transformed into the same apple, it would be the same apple.
... What are you saying?
A protocol with the same functionality would be the same protocol, and would not include any new features, like the one you think it is reasonable to request be added.
You have said a tautology and don't realize it.
Further, it isn't a design flaw.
It is a design paradigm.
The current paradigm is geared toward many communicating with many, aka, a simulation of a grand public square.
The paradigm you seem to prefer would necessarily be geared toward few communicating with few.
It would be primarily exclusive and impermissive, whereas the system that exists is inclusive and permissive.
You saying this is all a 'design flaw' is like being unsatisfied that an automobile cannot fly.
If you wanna drive, get a car, if you wanna fly, get an airplane.
If you want to endlessly dote that it sure would be neat if a hover car existed, sure, ok, you can do that, I am not stopping you.
But unless you are taking practical steps to achieve a hover car, then you are fostering a literally unproductive conversation, by definition.
Broadly, nearly all the time, I very much agree that user feedback is indeed very valuable and should be taken seriously.
But in this instance, what is being requested is very likely impossible to implement without a total, foundation level rewrite of the entire system (which would break and destroy every app using it), or, would necessistate the creation of an entirely different system.
This is because the requested change is antithetical to the core foundation of how the system works.
This is an engineering problem, a software engineering problem.
More people than myself have tried to explain how this particular request is basically impossible to implement without basically doing a complete rewrite.
So again, in this instance of this particular request, it is a very unreasonable request, that is not likely to be accomodated.
There is likely no way to make a system that is both capable of being freely federated and defederated, which also, somehow, has a grand, overriding, centralized, authoritative and authoritarian, total ability to prevent any users anywhere in the system from being able to view any other particular user's posted content.
If you could design such a system that is somehow capable of this, that would be a revolutionary achievement in software engineering.
Failing that, we have to deal with the trade offs of different design paradigms.
You can have centralized control from the core of the system itself (and thus a core set of admins, who we all know never ever abuse their powers) and 'personal safety', or, you can have decentralized control in the hands of users and instance admins, and have only the safety of manually curating your own experience within the system.
When people ask for the kind of blocking system that we are talking about here, they do not realize they are asking for a centralized system, which is antithetical to the entire concept of what ActPub is.
I needed to step away for a week because this comment section was giving me anxiety.
I know we both agreed the system is not perfect.
I haven't come up with a solution
and you refuse to acknowledge that treating OP like dog shit isn't an appropriate reaction for a non-technical user complaining about the confusion behaviour of a poorly named feature.\I came into this conversation because people kept mocking OP. I've been pulled off on tangents fighting about stupid shit because I can't keep my eye on the ball worth shit, but that's basically it. People are dragging OP for daring point out that the way "block" works here is confusing and feels bad to use.
Even if it cannot be implemented, it is not unreasonable for a user to request it.I also absolutely refuse to acknowledge that blocking is antithetical to decentralized systems. Just because it's not possible with the current design of activity pub doesn't mean that it's not possible in other decentralized systems. I'm not looking for perfection, I'm looking for improvement.
Here:
In mastodon, if Alice from instance A follows Bob from instance B, then instance B will send Bob's posts to A. In addition to that, when B sends Bob's posts to A, it can also send new block requests.
These block requests are public, and it is up to the subscribing instance to honor them, but it's most of the way there, and instance admins can choose to defederate with instances that don't honor it (like they already do with malicious instances).
Lemmy isn't mastodon, but it still uses activitypub, so decentralization isn't the limiting factor here.
With Lemmy it's actually more enforceable, since content in a community is owned by the instance hosting that community. If Charlie is on instance C, and tries to reply to Bob's post on instance A, instance A could have subscribed to Bob's blocklist, and will reject Charlie's reply because it's in reply to Bob's post. On Lemmy it doesn't even matter if Charlie's instance is malicious or not, as long as A isn't.
Malicious is the wrong word, but I think you get the idea. -
I needed to step away for a week because this comment section was giving me anxiety.
I know we both agreed the system is not perfect.
I haven't come up with a solution
and you refuse to acknowledge that treating OP like dog shit isn't an appropriate reaction for a non-technical user complaining about the confusion behaviour of a poorly named feature.\I came into this conversation because people kept mocking OP. I've been pulled off on tangents fighting about stupid shit because I can't keep my eye on the ball worth shit, but that's basically it. People are dragging OP for daring point out that the way "block" works here is confusing and feels bad to use.
Even if it cannot be implemented, it is not unreasonable for a user to request it.I also absolutely refuse to acknowledge that blocking is antithetical to decentralized systems. Just because it's not possible with the current design of activity pub doesn't mean that it's not possible in other decentralized systems. I'm not looking for perfection, I'm looking for improvement.
Here:
In mastodon, if Alice from instance A follows Bob from instance B, then instance B will send Bob's posts to A. In addition to that, when B sends Bob's posts to A, it can also send new block requests.
These block requests are public, and it is up to the subscribing instance to honor them, but it's most of the way there, and instance admins can choose to defederate with instances that don't honor it (like they already do with malicious instances).
Lemmy isn't mastodon, but it still uses activitypub, so decentralization isn't the limiting factor here.
With Lemmy it's actually more enforceable, since content in a community is owned by the instance hosting that community. If Charlie is on instance C, and tries to reply to Bob's post on instance A, instance A could have subscribed to Bob's blocklist, and will reject Charlie's reply because it's in reply to Bob's post. On Lemmy it doesn't even matter if Charlie's instance is malicious or not, as long as A isn't.
Malicious is the wrong word, but I think you get the idea.wrote last edited by [email protected]I haven't come up with a solution
and you refuse to acknowledge that treating OP like dog shit isn't an appropriate reaction for a non-technical user complaining about the confusion behaviour of a poorly named feature.\Uh... ok?
Treating OP like dogshit is bad.
I ... think that most people did their best to politely and cordially try to explain why their suggestion is silly, and then they, and also you as a white knight, kept persisting in not understanding or trusting the explanations given as to why it is a silly suggestion, and now you are apparently having a nervous breakdown from the idea that you and OP could be uninformed about something, and/or you seem to be more concerned with how your feelings have been hurt and how you do not feel validated.
If you and OP would have just listened to what me and others were saying initially, instead of being antagonistic and demanding and entitled about topics you do not understand, without offering any practically useful ideas, then you probably would not have annoyed as many people.
People are dragging OP for daring point out that the way "block" works here is confusing and feels bad to use.
I mean, its confusing if you're used to a different paradigm.
A centralized paradigm.
A corporate top down paradigm.
Feels bad to use?
I mean, subjective, but also user feedback is valuable, but also, a whole bunch of people explained all this rather politely, initially.
Even if it cannot be implemented, it is not unreasonable for a user to request it.
Yep, I agree, and this is why many people did their best to explain why this a request that is nigh impossible to implement.
Were some of those people kinda mean, after further being met with a dismissive or tone policing attitude?
Sure!
I guess you've never interacted with an actual developer before, who isn't also their own PR department.
You think having a conversation about software architecture is anxiety inducing?
Welcome to nearly every single meeting a senior dev is in almost every single day, often more than one.
Tends to make people a bit testy, when dealing with inexperienced people who waste their time and do not get to the point.
But hey, you have an actual idea this time, and I do genuinely appreciate that, so lets go through that.
In mastodon, if Alice from instance A follows Bob from instance B, then instance B will send Bob's posts to A. In addition to that, when B sends Bob's posts to A, it can also send new block requests.
These block requests are public, and it is up to the subscribing instance to honor them, but it's most of the way there, and instance admins can choose to defederate with instances that don't honor it (like they already do with malicious instances).
I... ok... so then you still run into this problem:
Alice blocks Bob.
Bob views Mastadon as a guest, or makes a new account, on either instance A or B.
Bob can now see everything Alice posts.
I believe you have already argued, or someone did, that throwing up ... that Bob would have to do that, this is a meaningful hinderence to at least prevent some users from doing so, that this existing is better than it not existing.
It is good to point out that Mastadon is doing this.
This does show that at least a technical implementation of an attempt at the desired feature with the desired effect exists, imperfect as it is.
I would argue though that this is nowhere near as effective as ... people seem to think it is, and really is just a palliative, a placebo, to make people feel as if they are in control of who can see their posts, when it is in actuality very trivial to bypass, and thus you would be doing more 'security theatre' than actual 'security'.
In that sense, I feel that such a 'Block' feature is actually morally bad, as it is a form of lying, providing false promises.
I would, and have argued that the only way to actually ensure that your posts, comments, whatever, are only seen by who you want them to be seen by... well, that requires something like a centralized, exclusionary paradigm:
No one can see anything on any ActPub based anything ... unless they are logged in, and they are logged in to some kind of an account that has been some kind of validated through some kind of validation system that is widely and at nearly universally adopted.
But, that is kind of antithetical to the concept of a public oriented platform.
Maybe another solution could be something like a customizable tiered permission system:
Most posts from Alice are 'public', others are reserved only for those following Alice, others are reserved for only those whom Alice has added to some kind of white list, somewhat analagous to a group chat, or... patreon posts you can only see if you are whatever tier of paid member.
With that kind of a paradigm, you would also have to do some kind of distribution of an encryption key system to go along with this, so that uh I guess Doug is in Alice's white listed or allow listed tier of close friends, and she has one half of the encryption key and Doug is given the other, and then also, whenever Alice removes I dunno, Erica from this group, this also prompts all of the encryptn keys to be remade and redistributed so that Doug gets a new key and Erica's key no longer works.
This... is ... maybe possible, to make work with ActPub, but would be a toooon of work to implement and test, at least speaking for myself and my own coding abilities, on my own.
Hence why I at one point said 'pay me $50 an hour'.
IIRC, this is closer to the concept that Google had for their failed social media network, Google+, where everything was....well, ultimately centralized on the backend, but the user experience was that of a bunch of people managing their personal existence within or without of a bunch of different 'circles'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%2B
So there, there is an idea, of encrypted content only visible to a select group of users, and a whole system of disseminating encryption keys and encrypted messages, that is maybe actually compatible with ActPub, that could maybe be developed as an addon or the mainline lemmy code, that could maybe be a kind of middle ground between 'basically totally permissive and inclusionary' and 'basically totally exclusive and nonpermissive'.
This again though would be quite a significant undertaking, to do this in a way that would not be chalk full of exploitable flaws to defeat the encryption.
Yeah, this is starting to sound more like trying to make ActPub work more like Signal or Matrix, the more that I think about it....oi vei.
The key element here is that if you want to actually guarantee certain people cannot see some or all of your content, you have to have some kind of a white list / allow list system that by default blocks out anyone who is not specifically trusted.
Otherwise... its as simple as make a new or guest account.
This also is not perfect in that people get all kinds of their account credentials for all kinds of things stolen every single day, accounts do get hijacked, but it is something.
Aside from all that:
Mastadon is much closer to trying to be Facebook or MySpace or Instagram.
So, the culture norms are more oriented toward trying to be about more... stronger, more substantial, more intimate bonds between fewer people, basically, where people tend to connect their actual real world identities more closely, more directly, to their accounts.
Lemmy is different.
Lemmy is much closer to reddit, or old school message boards, or even 4chan, where the norm is closer that you are pseudonymous in a way that is much closer to anonymous, where what is being aimed for is many many more connections to many many more people, but generally in a much more ephemeral, less intimate way.
This is why I was saying if you are serious about this, you would either need to code this yourself, simply because most Lemmy users and devs don't care enough to develop this Mastadon/Insta style Block, or you would need a way to find a dev willing to do this, pay them, convince them to do it somehow, start a lemmy comm or instance dedicated to developing this conceptually, work out actual concrete development guidelines.
'Lemmings' will tend to be culturally different, so to speak, so it will take convincing, you would have to be able to 'sell' the concept to them, it would be a much harder 'sell' than to Mastadon users/devs.
Its just a practical fact, there needs to be a plan for achieving the goal, for maybe discussing what that solution will actually look like, and who is going to actually code it.
I can say that if you maybe want to throw the idea I above outlined at other devs, or some discussion circle or something, feel free, go for it, but I am currently doing physical therapy full time after a series of crippling injuries, and am in no state myself to try to do any serious dev work.
