Seriously what's that idea?
-
If I block them, I want to stop them from engaging with me.
That's exactly what happens. They can no longer engage with YOU because YOU no longer see THEM.
It's a curtain, not a door.
Engaging with me is more than my ability to respond.
Them replying to my content is still engaging with me, no matter if I can see it. Them telling misinformation to other people in my thread is still engaging with me. -
Yeah, fuck those minorities, amirite? They don't deserve to use Lemmy anyways\
- you, a couple min ago
Please go make your own place where those minorities (whoever they are) can do whatever they want.
- Them before you put words in their mouth to make a terrible argument.
-
They shouldn't be able to do that!
Because the alternative is easily abused, see all the issues Reddit has with this type of block mechanism.
The core of the problem as I see it is, this gives every user limited moderation powers in every sub, the extent of that power is determined mainly just by how much they post and comment (blocked users can't comment under their posts, and can't reply to any comment in a chain started by the blocker), and the extent to which it is happening is invisible to most users. People advocating for this seem to assume it will be used mostly defensively, to prevent harassment, but the feature has way more utility offensively, and it's totally unaccountable. If there is something someone is saying (not even necessarily to you) that you don't like for whatever reason, whether or not it's against the rules and regardless of what anyone else thinks about it, you can partially silence them by blocking and then working to get engagement in the same spaces they comment in. Think about if this was implemented on Lemmy, lots of communities have only one or a few people making all the posts, if one or more of them blocked you that's almost the same as a ban. It doesn't make it better that the people making those posts are often also moderators, because it would be a way to pseudo ban people without it showing up in the mod log.
Moderation of online discussion spaces should be transparent and accountable, it shouldn't be a covert arms race between users.
-
Engaging with me is more than my ability to respond.
Them replying to my content is still engaging with me, no matter if I can see it. Them telling misinformation to other people in my thread is still engaging with me.You are (I know this is a shock) not the centre of the internet. Your inability to police what other people say is not a bug, but a feature.
-
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.they're not harassing you in your spaces, and your communities.
They would be, though. That's exactly what they're saying could happen - you just wouldn't be able to see it. In effect, what they described is exactly what you're claiming to be a problem, except worse because it's exclusively in control of the harasser.
-
Lemmy communities and irl communities are different things that only sometimes overlap.
For example, the irl trans community could be harassed in a Lemmy gaming community. If mods aren't sympathetic, then they're torn between just accepting the harassment, or forking the gaming community. While this is what Lemmy was meant to do, practically most Lemmy communities aren't large enough to meaningful support more than one instance, so one of the instances is going to wither on the vine. And most Lemmy mods seem overworked, besides.
-
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.It sounds like what you want is for moderators to ban people for you, which they will do if you report them and the moderators agree that what they are doing is unwanted in the community.
-
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
I mean...
I am describing a technical reality of how lemmy works.
You can 'disagree' with that, but uh, you would just be wrong.
Not in the sense of 'I do not have enough empathy to consider the plight of a regularly harassed person'.
More in the sense of ... ok, then don't use lemmy, if you don't like how it works.
Or... make it work the way you want it to work, by actually coding it.
Like, I wasn't joking when I basically said 'I am reasonbly confident it is impossible to make lemmy work the way you want it to.'
Thats not my opinion, in a... how should things work in an ideal world, sense of 'opinion'.
It is my opinion, as a person who understands a bit (certainly not all) about how the code just actually works.
If you can figure it out, I'd be impressed.
Alternatively, if you'd like to pay me $50 an hour to attempt to develop that, I may have some room in my schedule.
-
It sounds like what you want is for moderators to ban people for you, which they will do if you report them and the moderators agree that what they are doing is unwanted in the community.
wrote last edited by [email protected]They would likely not like or agree with what the moderator decided, as moderators are ether fairly hands off unless needed or hated by the community. They want the ability to police others just due to them conversing with them.
-
They would likely not like or agree with what the moderator decided, as moderators are ether fairly hands off unless needed or hated by the community. They want the ability to police others just due to them conversing with them.
Then they complain about the moderators, and if enough of the community agrees, things will change.
If the moderators won’t change, the community moves.
If they don’t agree with the community, they should find a different community.
-
They shouldn't be able to do that!
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?
-
How is "not letting you see what I personally wrote" consider to be "unilaterally silencing you" ?
What a mind bogglingly disingenuous response.I'm not saying that the reddit style block is good.
I'm saying that the current "mute" style block hangs vulnerable people out to dry.I'm ok trying something else, like maybe what you suggested.
How is "not letting you see what I personally wrote" consider to be "unilaterally silencing you" ?
It prevents me from responding to it.
I can see it either way, because they're public posts.
I'm ok trying something else, like maybe what you suggested.
I suspect not, because what I'm suggesting would entail an even looser set of restrictions on who can do what than what's already in place.
-
When did an appreciation for free speech become the exclusive domain of the Libertarians? I don't want you to be able to unilaterally silence me, therefore I'm a Libertarian?
Minor nitpick with your comment: there's a semantic difference between "Libertarian" and "libertarian", and I suspect you want the latter.
Small-l "libertarian" is used to refer to the political ideology.
Big-L "Libertarian" is used to refer to the Libertarian Party.
The same sort of convention also shows up elsewhere, like "democrat" and "Democrat", "republican" and "Republican", etc.
Fair enough. Either way, my basic point is that an appreciation for freedom of speech is not limited to just one particular niche political ideology or party.
-
Then they complain about the moderators, and if enough of the community agrees, things will change.
If the moderators won’t change, the community moves.
If they don’t agree with the community, they should find a different community.
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.
-
No, it is not.
Because as soon as you post, it is not your content.
Because it is a site build around public discourse, there is no dichotomy here let alone a false one.
Because there are anti-harassment tools in place, you just want a new way to harass.Defederation exists
Instance bans exist
Community bans exist
Why are all of those good, but individual bans aren’t?
Why are all of those effective (at least partially), but not for individuals?
Or is the argument that all of those should be disposed of, too?
Because they are not done by end users in a vacuum. You can go and make your own instance and do all of these things, and are encouraged to do so.
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.
-
What I mean is that I would like to see the usernames of everyone who downvoted.
-
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
Nah, in a public discussion, you/authorship isn't the primary concern, the text & interest of the public is primary.
Whether you want to see that text is your liberty.
The liberty of the public, however, is to likewise decide for themselves whether to read the text no matter who authors it regardless of petty disagreements between authors.
Your disagreements aren't ours.Just like in offline public discussions, no one should decide whether the public gets to see a marvelous takedown of text you happened to write just because you disagree with the author of that spectacular takedown.
-
I think they might have meant the identity of the voter, not just the specific number, but this one’s a great feature as well
Gotcha. https://lemvotes.org/
-
How is "not letting you see what I personally wrote" consider to be "unilaterally silencing you" ?
What a mind bogglingly disingenuous response.I'm not saying that the reddit style block is good.
I'm saying that the current "mute" style block hangs vulnerable people out to dry.I'm ok trying something else, like maybe what you suggested.
Bear in mind that evrrything you do or say on the fediverse is public, so there is no possible way to stop someone seeing it. Likewise, because the entire system is federated, there is no way to stop an individual from replying to you. Even if the community server rejected their message their own server would be able to display it.
This works well for general discussions, but I can see where it isn't ideal for more sensitive topics. People having those sorts of discussions should probably be using a system that is better suited to their needs.
-
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 currentblockmute 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
I'm sorry, but I feel like you need to support the statement "This comes from discussions I’ve had with minorities about the harassment they face on Lemmy and mastodon" a bit more. Your whole argument for limiting the speech of others is predicated on this statement.
I'm not saying that minorities couldn't face harassment on Lemmy, but Lemmy is by far the most liberal and minority supportive online forum I have ever experienced. Part of the reason Lemmy is so niche is because it doesn't have the mainstream attention other platforms have and is heavily moderated.
If you are engaging in an instance where harassment is occurring the moderators generally ban the person quickly. If the moderators of that instance aren't doing their job people generally leave and the instance dies from lack of content (there just aren't that many people on Lemmy). If someone follows you from a different instance to another the current instance moderators will likely ban them even if the one you met them on doesn't. Finally, if they are direct messaging you you can block them, they can continue to message you but you won't see their messages and neither will anyone else.
What minority group have you talked with that are receiving harassment and what extra protections were needed that aren't already here?
