Seriously what's that idea?
-
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.
-
there are so many threads.
its not but minorities its "based on this discussion I had about privacy and anti-harassment needs that minorities need".
harassment is bad. minorities are especially vulnerable to harassment.
reporting is good, but reporting is only one tool
the current "block" tool doesn't actually blocks, it mutes
that is confusing to users, who are surprised when they block a harasser that the harasser is still harassing them out of sight.
It'd be nice if, in addition to the report tool, and the mute tool, if there was a tool that could stop someone who is causing you mental anguish from doing so directly in your comments.
because people who are scared of the comments aren't going to post\we need more tools to combat harassment
a tool where you can stop someone from commenting on your content is a good self-service tool that is low-enough-impact that a mod doesn't need to be involved, because it doesn't affect the community itself.and at the very least, what OP is saying is reasonable. that is confusing AF, the person you've blocked isn't blocked from doing anything, the blocker is just hamstrung
-
OK so you do want censorship.
yes, we all want some censorship.
defederation is censorship.
instance bans are censorship.
community bans are censorship.\is your position that none of those should be allowed?
if so, thats a wild position to take, but you should say it with your full chest at least.
if thats not your position, why are you drawing the line here? and why are you willing to die on this arbitrary hill? -
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.
here, let me link you to the paradox of tolerance, you absolute mudcake.
try learning something.
-
They shouldn't be able to do that!
I have no issue with this whatsoever. I block people so that I don't need to see their posts, not that they couldn't see mine. If you don't want others reading what you post online, then don't post online.
-
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.
I've never been on reddit, fucking crazy puritan.
and guess what: the developers of lemmy can change it if they want to.
but meanwhile here you are, insulting people for having differing opinions, and discussing why they have those reasons. huh, funny. -
there are so many threads.
its not but minorities its "based on this discussion I had about privacy and anti-harassment needs that minorities need".
harassment is bad. minorities are especially vulnerable to harassment.
reporting is good, but reporting is only one tool
the current "block" tool doesn't actually blocks, it mutes
that is confusing to users, who are surprised when they block a harasser that the harasser is still harassing them out of sight.
It'd be nice if, in addition to the report tool, and the mute tool, if there was a tool that could stop someone who is causing you mental anguish from doing so directly in your comments.
because people who are scared of the comments aren't going to post\we need more tools to combat harassment
a tool where you can stop someone from commenting on your content is a good self-service tool that is low-enough-impact that a mod doesn't need to be involved, because it doesn't affect the community itself.and at the very least, what OP is saying is reasonable. that is confusing AF, the person you've blocked isn't blocked from doing anything, the blocker is just hamstrung
wrote last edited by [email protected]Just telling us "but someone else told me it's bad" contributes nothing to the current conversation if you cannot tell us anything about that discussion.
Giving every user access to a type of power that is known to be abusable is not a good solution. As I said at the start, we've seen this with Reddit. We've seen why this is not the right way.
-
I have no issue with this whatsoever. I block people so that I don't need to see their posts, not that they couldn't see mine. If you don't want others reading what you post online, then don't post online.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Also, while other locations in the Fediverse might disable access to unauthenticated persons, comments and post in Lemmy are generally public in that way. So, a blocked user could simply logout (or visit from a different instance) to see the content.
Also, as a third-party I do want someone (e.g. a fact checker) to be able reply to a comment with more information, so that I can see it, even if the commenter doesn't want to see replies (from the "woke mob" or wikipedians, e.g.).
I understand some people think the reply thread under their comments is somehow "owned" and should be "controlled" by them, but I don't agree. I think this should also be true in most places on the Fediverse, tho it isn't (as I understand it) on Mastodon (and the like).
-
care to elaborate on that?
I have. Multiple times.
wrote last edited by [email protected]oh thats rich.
let me quote to you every reply you've given me so far in this thread. this will be a good laugh.They would be, though. That’s exactly what they’re saying could happen - you just wouldn’t be able to see it. In effect, what they described is exactly what you’re claiming to be a problem, except worse because it’s exclusively in control of the harasser.
how would preventing the harasser from commenting on my posts give the harasser more control than letting them comment on my post?
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?
You still haven't explained how control is being handed to the harasser. In fact, you said the victim is getting blocked, so I'm not clear who you even consider to be the victim here. And in fact, it doesn't need to be invisible to them.
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.
again, you haven't explained how control is being handed to the harasser
I have. Multiple times.
no, you have not.
and that is every reply that I can find that you sent to me.
but meanwhile I actually went into detail about who would be able to do what, and what that would mean for both parties.
so... thats pretty embarrassing for you.
I know it can be difficult to keep things straight with so many threads going on, but have a bit of humility. -
They shouldn't be able to do that!
Because it would allow people to push narratives and not get called out if they block everyone against them.
Imagine a civil transphobe pushing some narrative that flies below the radar of whatever mods are moderating that comm. If they block all the trans users they cannot get called out on their stuff anymore.
I think there was some discourse on this on black mastodon?
-
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.
Why not start your own TV discussion threads with blackjack and hookers?
-
Agreed. It’s a flaw in the system
it was kinda same with reddit too. people just get around it by using another account and just harrass you again, or they try to brigade you and report.
-
Easier job to do when you're actually getting reports.
- Reporting = this breaks the rules please moderate
- Blocking = Fuck them, even if they rechnicly abide by the rules I don't want them near me
- Muting = I don't want to see what this person does but don't want to hurt them beyond that
wrote last edited by [email protected]i do that to, with the 2nd bullet point, sometimes i block people to avoid arguements, even if one of the parties maybe in the wrong.(either you misspoke something or the other guy was misinterpreting) most of the time, i block because they dont argue in good faith.(i almost never report people)
