Seriously what's that idea?
-
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?
-
I don’t -it’s the replies TO the blocked user I’d like to see.
-
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.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. If a gaming community's members are harassing a trans community, could the trans community's moderators not simply ban everyone from that gaming community from the trans community? That's a power that moderators have. You could also report the gaming community to the administrators of their instance and if the administrators thought it was a problem they could shut down that community. You could also ask your own instance's administrators to defederate from the gaming community's instance. All of those things are things that can be done with the way the Fediverse is currently set up.
-
Don't make me tap the sign.
-
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.
I could do it at 48/h, js
-
They shouldn't be able to do that!
I agree, but meh, I don't think I care much about it one way or another. Just not seeing their annoying replies is enough for me.
-
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
But if you don’t see what they’re saying, why do you care? How does it affect you?
What you want is to be able to silence them because you don’t like what they’re saying, ie censorship.
-
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.
