Seriously what's that idea?

[email protected]

There was a forum I used to lurk on. I hardly ever posted, but there were still some posters who were so annoying that I had to block them anyway, to not get aggravated while reading the good posters. In fact I remember now, it was worse than that. The forum software for some reason only let you block a maximum of 10 accounts at a time, and there were far more than 10 annoying posting accounts (though maybe fewer people behind them) at any given time. I ended up having to write my own software to ignore enough accounts. I had first resisted ignoring, but once I gave in to the feature, I went nuts with it and it was great.

That was a really good forum that became useless when trolls overran it. The owners fixed it by charging a one-time $5(?) fee to get an account (existing users didn't have to pay). If they banned a troll account, they couldn't really stop the troll from paying up to join again, but few bothered doing that. So that worked quite well and was a big relief. Not counting the trolls, it was an intense and nerdy forum that legitimate participants didn't mind paying to join. It was eventually shut down with its archives deleted even though the parent site is still around. I don't know why they did that and I think its archives could have some significant historical value. Oh well.

Edit: I may be mis-remembering how the fee worked. It might be that you had to be a paying member of the parent site, since I do remember sending money, though that might have been to access some unrelated site features.

[email protected]

This is like putting up a tall fence to obscure the view of your neighbors and being surprised they don't cease existing on the other side

You don't want to just block users, you want to unilaterally ban them

There's a difference between fair and just

[email protected]

I want to stop them from engaging with me. I don't want to let them keep engaging with me without my ability to see what they're saying.

Edit:
Give persecuted minorities a way to protect themselves.
This comes from discussions I've had with minorities about the harassment they face on Lemmy and mastodon, and the current ~~block~~ mute feature is more harmful than helpful.

If you're using "block" to curate your content, then it works great. If you're trying to prevent harassment, then it's counterproductive

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

It's The Sixth Sense, you're the wife and they're Bruce Willis. Just get on with your life

[email protected]

I'd call what you're describing "muting" rather than blocking.

I used to agree with you, but then I spoke with some people from persecuted minorities, and this style of blocking just gives power to their abusers rather than keeping their communities and themselves safe.

Yes they can get a new account, but it's another hurdle, and if we erect enough hurdles then it'll catch enough of them. Defense in depth.

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

If you care what they are saying, you shouldn't block them. If you don't care, you shouldn't care they are commenting on you.

I don't want other people being able to hide criticism of their posts/comments they don't like from me. Allowing you to completely block engagement with your posts would just strengthen echo chambers and bolster misinformation IMO.

[email protected]

I used to agree with you until I actually spoke with people from communities that get regularly harassed.

Muting is great if all you want to do is hide content you don't like. But if you need to defend yourself against a campaign of harassment, this only gives power to the harassers.

Yes all the have to do is make a new account, but it's another hurdle they have to cross. Better than no hurdle and also blindfolding yourself

[email protected]

A point worth considering but i'll still try to coexist x now.

[email protected]

How is it not fair? You get to decide what you can see and say. You don't get to decide what I can see and say.

[email protected]

The problem you've solved is that they're not harassing you in your spaces, and your communities.
If they wanna cry about me in their basement with their own friends, that's ok. But I want to put hurdles, at least some inconveniences, between myself and their ability to harass me in my communities. Force them to manage 30 accounts, etc.

[email protected]

Engagement is a two-way street. By blocking them you have stopped engaging with them.

The fact that you're upset by what other people are doing somewhere that you can't see and that doesn't affect you seems like a you problem, frankly. Just forget about them.

[email protected]

Maybe you don't need a block function to accomplish that, then. Seems you could accomplish it by just not caring about what the user says.

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

The engagement between the two of you is over. He's saying stuff to other people now, not to you.

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.

You want to control what they see and do? No, you don't get to decide that for other people.

If you don't want to lose your ability to see what they're saying then don't block them.

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

My main experience with blocking is when people use it to "get the last word" in an argument. They'll write up a response - often containing questions and challenges to my position - and then immediately block me after posting it so that it will look like I gave up in the face of their arguments.

I usually just edit my previous comment with whatever responses seem necessary, playing an Uno Reverse on them since they'll be the ones who never see it.

It's still rather annoying, though, because if other people also respond Reddit's brain-dead implementation prevents me from responding to other people who have responded to someone who blocked me.

I am glad that the Fediverse has a much more sane approach to blocking that doesn't let it be weaponized like that.

[email protected]

Then go to a private platform. This is a platform for public discourse, not private communities.

PS: You could even make a community on lemmy and ban people as it's moderator. Although a different platform may still be a better fit.

[email protected]

You might be better served using the "report" button if you are indeed dealing with harassment. That would be the appropriate tool for such things.

But I am going to go out on a limb and guess that you want to be able to just unilaterally punish anyone you don't like.

agnos.is Forums

Seriously what's that idea?