Seriously what's that idea?
-
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. -
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.
care to elaborate on that?
I have. Multiple times.
-
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.
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?
No I am saying you don't sound like you would be good at it, and then actively encouraged you to do so anyway.
i dont want to be a mod, being a mod sounds miserable, like ive repeatedly said.
You have not but I get it, you don't want the responsibility, just a bit of the power.
LOL at standing up an instance as being a reasonable solution to anything for a normal user or small community.
Do you think the people who host instances are some special class? That it is some unattainable goal? Its not as much work as you think, I might spin up one myself this year.
-
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
See, At least this is a reasonable argument. I don't agree with it, and think you are conflating the need for private spaces and the existence of public ones.
The root of our impasse is that you think every public place needs to have drastic tools to protect people in the hands of all users, regardless of what that does to a platform.
-
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"
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.
It is, though. By your actions you would change what someone else is able to do, regardless of what community they're in. By blocking someone you're creating a new rule on what that someone is allowed to do and see across all of the Fediverse.
That's the fundamental disagreement here. I don't think this is acceptable. You can change what you see, and moderators can change who and what is allowed inside their community, but nothing you do should be affecting what someone else can do across all of the Fediverse.
-
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.
More 1st amendment (not that I am american). I think I made it clear that what you propose will do more harm and that what I am protecting is the ability for everyone to post on a public site based on the idea that it is what it was built for. I don't think that lemmy has no harassment, but reporting and having much more private communities ran by members of that community is a better choice then giving every single person (the harassers included) the ability to police what is typed everywhere.
-
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.They were complaining the blockee could write any public response even an impersonal one.
Doxxing & other issues likely already violate rules & I don't see how that would happen, since we don't reveal much about ourselves.
I don't see how defamation would happen without a real identity.
Harassment likely wouldn't fit the legal definition: at most, some call being incredibly annoying harassment.I've seen threatening replies I didn't report (because I consider online threats vacant hyperbole) result in bans.
