Seriously what's that idea?
-
You don’t get to make that decision.
you dont get to make that decision
-
Devs want a monopoly on the power to block people they don't like through the use of bans
Admins can ban on a per instance basis. Moderators can ban on a per community basis. But devs don't have any particular banning power.
Well, the devs are also the major community moderators and admins on the ml instance, which was the largest for a long time.
They still treat it like their private walled garden.
I may be overreaching with my assumption about their motivations, but then again I may not.
-
Well, the devs are also the major community moderators and admins on the ml instance, which was the largest for a long time.
They still treat it like their private walled garden.
I may be overreaching with my assumption about their motivations, but then again I may not.
Ehh. I don't think that the underlying goal was to try to obtain some sort of "ban monopoly" on the Threadiverse. If they had, they had a ton of things that they could have done that they didn't.
-
Don't support federation in the first place.
-
Have lemmy.ml and friends simply disallow federation with other instances.
-
Break compatibility in new builds to make it harder for people to run other instances. Don't open-source Lemmy in the first place.
Like, I think that it's pretty lame that some of the official Lemmy software support stuff is communities on lemmy.ml, which has an admin situation that I don't really like. But...that seems like an awfully weak lever to be pulling if someone's goal is to try to exclude anyone else from having the ability to restrict users.
-
-
sorry i was getting it mixed up, i've had a very similar conversations a few times and that rebuttal came up multiple times.
mods and admins are overworked, and they can't always be expected to keep up to date with dogwhistles along with everything else they have to manage. besides, harassment doesn't always appear to break ToS - starting rumours and spreading lies about someone can be very difficult to prove to a mod, but can have huge repercussions in some communities.
and besides, it can take a while before mods/admins are able to take action.IMO I think a few things should exist.
I should be able to prevent someone from replying to my content even if I can't prevent them from seeing it.
Additionally, I think there should be a best effort to make invite-only/private communities. I know that the fediverse makes this technically difficult, but having something is better than having nothing. -
Well think about it, you say it's abuse because someone can use blocking to change how conversations work right? They can make replies the other person can't respond. That same thing can still happen. Yeah harass someone to the point they block you and then you continue to harass them by making replies that they can't see and changing how the conversation of this forum works. It's the exact same thing. Just opposite direction.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I've blocked a bunch of people, who may be replying to me with harassing comments, but that isn't influencing what I do. It might influence the overall conversation, and that could be a problem, but I think the way that problem is dealt with should be public, because the problem is public, it's not something that's exclusively my problem. I don't think I should have the authority to act to police any arbitrary community like that, especially without anyone being able to know that I'm doing it.
-
Ehh. I don't think that the underlying goal was to try to obtain some sort of "ban monopoly" on the Threadiverse. If they had, they had a ton of things that they could have done that they didn't.
-
Don't support federation in the first place.
-
Have lemmy.ml and friends simply disallow federation with other instances.
-
Break compatibility in new builds to make it harder for people to run other instances. Don't open-source Lemmy in the first place.
Like, I think that it's pretty lame that some of the official Lemmy software support stuff is communities on lemmy.ml, which has an admin situation that I don't really like. But...that seems like an awfully weak lever to be pulling if someone's goal is to try to exclude anyone else from having the ability to restrict users.
I'm more expressing frustration that they have been approached multiple times about fixing the broken blocking by either renaming it muting (what it actually is), or creating an actual blocking feature. The excuses they provide are nonsensical.
Blocking protects users. Why would a federated platform not want to protect users?
-
-
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!
I'm generally trying to go off of a conversation I had with someone 2 years ago in lemmy. I was generally of the opposite opinion to my current stance, and they explained how the current "everything is public, dont even try to hide it from people" stance is problematic to persecuted minorities. It was 2 years ago so I'm a bit fuzzy on the details - I had to go look it up because someone didnt believe that the conversation even existed, but i didnt re-read the whole comment section.
their point was that, while total privacy in a federated service is likely impossible, you want to make it non-trivial for harassers to do harassment.
reporting is absolutely more appropriate than blocking, but blocking has a few advantages:
- its immediate, you dont need to wait for mods/admin.
- you don't need to prove to an admin that something that the harasser said about you is actually a lie.
- mods/admins don't need to be up-to-date on all the current dogwhistles
- it doesn't need to actually affect the harasser beyond you. they dont need to get banned from the whole community or instance, unless the community or instance feels like they should be. its lower impact. This is important for lemmy communities that represent real communities, like classes or teams or neighborhoods.
-
thats exactly the take i used to have, until it was explained to me how harmful that is to persecuted minorities and drives them off the platform.
I evidently cannot do a good job of explaining why that would be the case and (apparently) why thats even a problem, but I believe it is.
-
at least with the reddit way, the victim can put up hurdles to prevent the harasser from coming into their comments and flooding them with foul shit.
How? One new account that blocks the victim and it's exactly what you're arguing against, except now the user doesn't get the choice to ignore it or fight back. It's completely invisible to them.
With how it works here, it's the victim's choice to endure it or isolate themselves from it. Do you not see how that's better?
except the victim doesn't have the choice to endure it or isolate themselves, they only have the choice to blind themselves. The attacker still gets to spread lies and rumours in the victim's very own comment section - the harassment still continues even if the victim cannot see it.
not every community is that of online strangers, some people actually know eachother IRL, or in some capacity outside of lemmy.
-
To be clear I'm not saying it's a solution, just that the proposed solution isn't actually one, either. At the end of the day, it's not possible to both do what OP is asking for and not also make block lists public, so it's all academic at this point.
I think that making blocklists public is the lesser evil
what I'm saying mostly is that what OP is asking for isn't unreasonable. people are giving them shit for it, and thats not fair. there are problems with the current solution.
I know that the reddit-style blocking also has problems. It'd be great if there was a better solution. but simply wanting to prevent a harasser from harassing you in your metaphorical front yard without appealing to the powers that be, or simply shutting your ears and eyes, seems like a pretty reasonable thing to want regardless of technical complication.
-
This is not harassment. If you feel otherwise please use the tools provided and report.
whats not harassment?
-
all of those are unrealistic options
I said that forking the community to begin with isn't realistic. There would be no "trans-friendly gaming" community because it wouldn't have enough members to sustain it. Lemmy is too small to sustain multiple communities for the same topic, for all but the most popular topics. When you see multiple communities for a topic, almost always all but one is a ghost town.
so splitting the community, or defederating aren't really options
hopefully going to mod, or failing that the admin, would be successful. but mods and admins are criminally overworked already, and lemmy is too small to maintain a healthy mod pool.I don't have great technical solutions here, unfortunately.
I'm just trying to explain that what OP wants is reasonable, and everyone here shitting on him is not being reasonable.I'm just trying to explain that what OP wants is reasonable,
And I maintain that it's not reasonable. You (and OP) want individual users to be able to control what other individual users can see and do on the Fediverse. They've tried that on Reddit. RunawayFixer found this experiment, for example. The results were not good from a pragmatic perspective, let alone a philosophical one.
I think you're going to have to accept that in a free environment there are going to be people saying things and reading things that you don't approve of. You can create a community with whatever rules you want to enforce there, but you can't enforce your rules on other communities. Just as they can't enforce them on yours.
-
whats not harassment?
My statements here, but you knew that. Once again if you feel other wise, please use the report feature.
-
They are not overworked and ineffective, at least not all. And no people can make conclusions on others based on their actions and words, you are not able to stop that.
it is my impression that they are \
didn't lemm.ee shut down just this year, because they were overwhelmed, not just to the technical demands of running an instance, but because of all the social bullshit?
and when are they going to have time to keep up-to-date on all the current dogwhistles?
how is a mod going to be able to effectively judge if a harassment report is true if the harassment depends on if the harasser is spreading lies about the reporter?
and regardless of if my impression is accurate or not, that is my impression. what in the name of the everloving baby jesus would make you think thats something that I would want to deal with?
im not even that active on lemmy. just in bursts like today where someone says something that gets me riled up. -
They shouldn't be able to do that!
wrote last edited by [email protected]Not sure if it's the same on Lemmy, but on Mastodon, your blocks are definitely shared to other instances. So the instance of the user you blocked definitely stores that you've blocked their user. And their system admin can view if their user has been blocked (via the PostgreSQL db).
Technically, hiding your posts from your intended blockee should be doable. But someone could run a modified version of Mastodon and display content from people who have blocked them.
Or just create a new account.
I'm unsure if Lemmy is coded in this same way (storing remote blocks on instances of the blocked user).
-
This is seriously excellent. Now I can tell who downvoted my comments. I had even previously tried to look through the public lemmy API to see if I could find this information. Thank you!
-
i mean, i’ve linked you to the conversation I had.
You have? I must have missed it, could you re paste it?
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?
Odd, not sure what you are getting at. Talk about what? Are you sure you are replying to the right person. Also please continue to try and guess my gender, race, and world view, since it is clear you want to paint me in a way that you can disregard my statements. You wish to make me less then human, so please do.
second time I've shared this with you (or at least a reply in the same thread). I dont think that the conversation is in one linear thread, but i dont remember since it was 2 years ago.
since it is clear you want to paint me in a way that you can disregard my statements
kind of like the things you've been saying to both me _and other people in this thread (?!?!?) that I'm a powerhungry mod wannabe? is that not painting me in a way so that you (and others?!?!) can disregard my statements? if not, then why do you keep bringing it up?
2 wrongs don't make a right, but at least I'm trying to convey the concerns that I learned about to the best of my ability. as best I can tell, you don't even seem to want to admit that there is any issue with the current way things are.
because fundamentally all I'm trying to do is say that the things that OP wans are reasonable for a person to want when engaging with a social network, and I'm using this previous conversation I had as groundwork with which to explain that. Which I'm evidently doing poorly. -
except the victim doesn't have the choice to endure it or isolate themselves, they only have the choice to blind themselves. The attacker still gets to spread lies and rumours in the victim's very own comment section - the harassment still continues even if the victim cannot see it.
not every community is that of online strangers, some people actually know eachother IRL, or in some capacity outside of lemmy.
You're hinging on the wrong part. The only difference between the scenarios laid out is who has the choice. In the one you are arguing for, the choice is in the hands of the harasser.
-
I disagree that all content on lemmy should be treated as strictly public. I think that there are (or should be) nuance to that.
I realize that federation creates technical challenges to meet that strictly, but a best effort is better than no effort.
for example, I think its reasonable to have communities that are invite-only. AFAIK thats not currently possible in lemmy, but giving a best-effort to make that happen would be better than nothing. Instances known to ignore it could be defederated, clients known to ignore it could be blocked. swiss cheese defense.
I disagree that all content on lemmy should be treated as strictly public.
Acknowledging your disagreement, it's observable fact that it is.
It's readable to the public & open to public input.
That input may be more concerned with responding to ideas (eg, as a criticism or corroboration) and presenting that to the public reader than for communicating specifically to the author of the text that inspired it.
I certainly read primarily for content & ideas and respond accordingly like I'm trying to show the public something.
Anyone can respond.Comments I release to the public I treat as the public's & not really mine.
If that's not for you, then I don't think you're identifying a technical limitation but a disagreement with design goals: the design of lemmy makes much sense for public discussion.With private, direct messages, you may have a better argument.
-
thats exactly the take i used to have, until it was explained to me how harmful that is to persecuted minorities and drives them off the platform.
I evidently cannot do a good job of explaining why that would be the case and (apparently) why thats even a problem, but I believe it is.
Well, you haven't even tried to explain it. You've just been saying "but minorities" over and over while refusing to elaborate.
