Seriously what's that idea?
-
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.
-
Who cares how it looks to others. If you have to have the last word then don’t block them.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Well by that logic why even Post in a public forum at all? If you don't care about any of us seeing or reading your comments then why are you making them? Shouldn't you just say them into your mirror? I mean hell by responding to me at all you've proven that you care. Otherwise you would have let my comment go without response right?
This is a message forum. The entire point is that we're all talking together.
-
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.That isn't what I said. You're replying to me to talk about somebody else's argument, while completely ignoring mine.
-
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
Ah... Would reporting them rather than blocking be more appropriate, then? I recognize reporting isn't always effective, but the right answer seems to be getting the community to police it rather than hiding your commentary from them.
And I recognize I'm speaking from a dearth of experience, here - this isn't something I've dealt with, so I'm genuinely asking!
-
“won’t someone think of the children” isn’t always wrong.
It is always wrong to frame an argument in this fashion, its a emotional ploy for a weak argument. Instead use a better line of reasoning.
What’s absolutely crazy to me is that you say “blocking won’t work because they can get a new account” and then in the very same breath suggest that reporting is a viable strategy. Either it is or it isn’t, which is it?
I never said that, likely you have me confused with someone else.
Public/private discourse is a false dichotomy. What are your thoughts on a community’s ability to ban someone? Should groups lose that ability, since apparently it’s both ineffective and toxic, apparently?
Mod log exists for this reason and communities are often defederated for abusing this power. And I have made no comment on the effectiveness or toxicity of mod powers. You sound like you want to be a mod but the worst kind of biased one.
wrote last edited by [email protected]yeah, me wanting to be a mod is totally consistent with my view, that I have expressed here, that mods are both overworked and ineffective.
whats that? i didnt say it to you? no way! its almost like you created a crazy version of me in your head and accuse me of things based on it! -
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.
i just want a new way to harass?
naw fam, i think you're looking to protect your existing way to harass people.
the fact that youre suggesting someone just goes and makes their own instance shows that you're being astronomically disingenuous.
-
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.
i mean, i've linked you to the conversation I had.
have you tried to talk to anyone about it? or are you just some white dude confidently saying that nobody should change anything because it works for you, so it should work for everyone else?
because you really sound like that.
