Seriously what's that idea?
-
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.
-
I'm not trying to enforce rules on other communities.
im not even trying to enforce rules on any communityreddit-style blocking would allow the person to continue to be in that community, they wouldn't even need to be kicked out.
its crazy that you're framing personally blocking someone so they cant reply to it as though I'm changing the rules for lemmy communities.
Like, OP wasn't even saying that blocking someone should hide my content from the person I blocked, just that it should stop them from replying to it. it doesn't even have to be reddit style, it just has to be more than shutting your eyes and ears and saying "lalalalala"
-
thats not the entire extent of harassment. harassment extends far beyond insulting someone to their face.
You can’t stop other people from badmouthing you behind your back. That’s just life. Accept it and move on. Trying to censor people because you don’t like what they’re saying is peak liberal fascism.
-
They shouldn't be able to do that!
The way Reddit does is abusive. I called out a guy for spamming, he blocked me, he's the one who creates TV discussion threads, I can't participate anymore.
-
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).
You can show them even if you don't allow them to comment.
-
My statements here, but you knew that. Once again if you feel other wise, please use the report feature.
i didnt say you were harassing anyone. i said you were protecting the ability to harass people. which is a really strange thing to do. kinda like American 2nd amendment freaks.
-
you dont get to make that decision
I didn’t say I do - the software developers of Lemmy did. If you don’t like it go back to Reddit where they do exactly what you are asking for.
-
How the Threadiverse works today --- blocking hides content from blocked users, but doesn't affect their ability to comment --- is how Reddit originally worked, and I think that it was by far a better system.
Reddit only adopted the "you can't reply to a comment from someone who has blocked you" system later. What it produced was people getting into fights, adding one more comment, and then blocking the other person so that they'd be unable to respond, so it looked like the other person had conceded the point.
A thousand percent this.
Reddit's new system makes a ton of sense until you see it in action in a cat fight with the blocked user having to edit their previous comment to clarify they're now unable to respond to anything the other user is saying and everything turns into a mess.While I could totally agree neither method is perfect, it only takes one heated thread on Reddit to see why (IMO) this new method is much worse than the previous.
-
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.
Oh we're just going to repeat our previous comments without addressing anything the other person said. Okay. Didn't know that was the plan.
-
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.
care to elaborate on that?
because in the way it works now, all the victim can do is shut their eyes and pretend. thats a choice, but its not much of one.
in the scenario I'm supporting, the victim can stop their harasser from doing the harassment directly on their front lawn (eg in the comments to their own posts, in the replies to their threads). thats a more impactful choice.
I'm not saying that lemmy should get rid of muting, I'm saying that I shouldn't depend on a mod to kick someone out of the whole community just to get relief from them saying shit in my own comments.
-
Oh we're just going to repeat our previous comments without addressing anything the other person said. Okay. Didn't know that was the plan.
wrote last edited by [email protected]If a stalker wants to harass you, preventing them from replying to you will only mean they’re going to keep making more accounts to get around it, then it’s just a constant game of whack-a-mole that you will not win.
If they keep replying to all your comments and get zero reply from you, ever, but can’t see that you blocked them, they’ll eventually get tired of it because they need the response - that’s why they are doing it.
If you can’t see their replies to your posts then who cares? Who cares if other people can see them and reply to them - you can’t, so why does it matter? You do not get to decide that other people are censored. If you want that ability, start your own instance and start your own communities so you can go all fascist dictator on them there.
-
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.
so just a point here - the OP never actually said that the blockee shouldn't be able to see what the blocker posted, they weren't actually complaining about visibility of their own content.
they were complaining that when they blocked someone, the blockee could continue the harassing behaviour and the blocker would just be ignorant of the slander being said of them. if the blockee escalated to doxxing or something, they wouldn't even know, and the blockee could do it and would be unlikely to be reported since reporting on behalf of someone (i expect) is much less common unless the offense is both egregious and trivially verifiable.
