Seriously what's that idea?
-
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.
-
Ah thanks for sharing the source!
Really that is helpful.
so as ada (the person you are claiming has shown you the light) said:
The Fediverse though, even though it has hate filled cesspits, gives us tools that put barriers between vulnerable groups and those spaces. The barriers are imperfect, they have booked holes and be climbed over by people who put the effort in, but they still block the worst if it.
In fact reading this I don't think ada (we could just ask them) would take the same position as you on this. They are talking about overall systems and that public systems are not safe for people who have to hide their identity (I don't 100% agree but do see the point). I would not try to put words into their mouth, and I would not use a conversation from 2 years ago in vague memory to argue a point.
Actually lets ask them @[email protected] , discourse is healthy after all and like most users on this platform they likely have something of substance to say.
that is fair. I shouldn't be putting words in their mouth. I don't think I was. I think i was being pretty clear that this is my current opinion after talking to ada, where I used to have similar beliefs to the majority here (public is public, dont expect privacy) and they convinced me that thats not a reasonable position to take if you value the safety of persecuted minorities (although I have to admit idk if that was what they were hoping I'd take away from that conversation).
Presumably they can do a much better job of explaining the concerns than I can. I have no idea how/if their views have changed since then, or how they apply specifically to blocking.
but my opinion, after talking with them, is that its not a reasonable position to take that public is public, so there should be no expectation of privacy. To me the idea that blocking people only hides their content from you is an extension of that. this comment will maybe give you a better impression of what I got out of that conversation
-
You entirely missed my point, or just disregarded it.
Yep, it ain't perfect.
... Got any... useful ideas about that?
About how to rework that design?
How we gonna make that happen?
What's the plan?
Or do we just want to agree that perfect would be better than not perfect?
Talk is cheap, most of it is near totally useless noise, hosting all that talk though, facilitating all that blather, in a functional, much less ideal manner... now that's complicated and expensive, and lemmy's budget is basically zero, and all the devs are volunteers.
I didn't disregard your point, but i may have missed it.
afaict your point was "lemmy doesn't work that way, so either put up with it, fix it, or go elsewhere"I dont think thats a very reasonable stance to take, if that was your stance. I strongly don't believe in the motto criticism without a suggestion is destructive criticism. I believe there is a ton of value in getting criticism from people who don't understand what a fix would look like, or only knowing superficially what it'd look like.
right now we're engaging in a discussion about what change, if any, should even happen. I want to come to a consensus so that those volunteer devs aren't wasting their time working on things that make peoples' lives worse.
I'm trying to say "hey, what OP wants isn't an unreasonable thing for a person using a social network to want" and try to explain why i think its reasonable for them to want.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]You’ve decided that you don’t care what that specific individual has to say. You can’t prevent them from talking about you, but if you’ve chosen to block them then you shouldn’t care what they say to other people.
You can still talk to other people, and they can reply to you.
-
Please show me where I am harassing someone, this would be valuable information.
And yes, I do think that what you are purposing would be abused and used for harassment.
the fact that youre suggesting someone just goes and makes their own instance shows that you’re being astronomically disingenuous.
You can go make a community right now, its not hard and very much encouraged. You can also make an instance but that is harder, and also encouraged.
I didnt say you were harassing someone, i said you were protecting the means by which to harass people.
They’re related. Often, the ability to limit your audience is about making it non trivial for harassers to access your content rather than impossible.
fuck yougo make a community? you've already been accusing me of being a power hungry mod, and now you're telling me to go make a community to mod?
i dont want to be a mod, being a mod sounds miserable, like ive repeatedly said.
and lemmy doesn't have enough users to be splitting up communities anyways. its built to do it, but practically you can't, despite it being "encouraged"LOL at standing up an instance as being a reasonable solution to anything for a normal user or small community.
-
Oh? does it not sit well with you?
i mean, the hypocrisy certainly doesn't.
why would it?
-
If they are running their own communities yes they can. Mods can and do ban people from the communities.
lemmy communities and irl communities aren't the same, they only sometimes partially overlap.
-
me personally? I don't particularly care. i rarely use mute/block features.
but I understand that for some people, its a problem, because harassment doesn't just end at insults, it can also be spreading rumours and talking shit.
its not going to be obvious to onlookers that one person has muted another, so if the harasser goes all over the victim's posts saying terrible lies and rumours, then the victim should be able to know that and take action to stop it, even if the rumours aren't against the community/instance ToS, and the victim can't prove to the mods that the rumours are lies.
OK so you do want censorship.
-
They shouldn't be able to do that!
I don't mind it, but if the devs change it I hope they don't take the Reddit route that prevents you from replying to any comment chain the user is in, especially with how small Lemmy is. Direct replies I can understand.
