Seriously what's that idea?
-
i didnt just say that someone else told me its bad, i explained it to you.
and also reddit-style blocking isn't the only way to satisfy what OP (and I) want. its just the clearest example.
the reddit style blocking is a problem because malicious party can pre-emptively block people they're going to shit talk and then the subject of the shit-talking wont know about it. but you can still block interaction without blocking the visibility.you can block a harasser from posting harassment on the victim's content without the reddit problems.
-
Yup, that's what I said.
I feel like I'm speaking to Patrick Star.
-
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.
This sounds like the words of an abuser.
-
give the victim a low impact tool that they can use to mitigate the harassment a bit.
It is nether low impact or given to just the victims. The concept you have proposed has also been used to build echo chambers of extreme right wing ideologies, used to cancel discourse and bully any descension to an idea, and most of all used to bully minorities by simply asking loaded questions with ultimatums then blocking the person. What you are advocating for flies in the very face of what lemmy is trying to do, and you are so confident that this will help victims you are willing to "close your eyes" to anything other then a standing ovation in response to your half baked idea.
We have the tools to deal with harassment (and they can always be improved), you seem to think unfettered censorship is needed to fix an issue you seem to have little knowledge or experience of. You could gain some insight by just volunteering to do some mod work, but you are unwilling to do so, yet still think you can speak with any authority on the subject. It is laughable and pure arrogance to think that copying something that has killed the spark/drive of other platforms is a good idea.
This assumes I'm married to having a block that is exactly like reddit, which I'm not. I just replied to you in another thread with a suggestion that more or less accounts for all of these concerns.
It cant account for "simply asking loaded questions with ultimatums then blocking the person" but that seems like it'd only be a problem in communities where the mods were already in on it, right? Otherwise these people would just be banned by the mods for clearly bullying. If mods are able to do their jobs, as you say they are, anyways. would mods not be able to handle this?you have repeatedly explicitly stated how unqualified I am to be a mod, and here you are telling me to be a mod.
You sound like you want to be a mod but the worst kind of biased one.
They want the ability to police others just due to them conversing with them.
you don’t want the responsibility, just a bit of the power.why are you telling me to be a mod then?
you think that I'll make a bunch of people miserable, that will teach me some kind of lesson? if not, then what?
were the admins of lemm.ee lying about it all? were the old reddit mods lying about it before the mod purge?
i dont get what your goal with telling me to mod something. -
Why not start your own TV discussion threads with blackjack and hookers?
Evento better, with blahaj and hookers.*
-
but the argument that I'm seeing is "its bad to even try to hinder it"
I know that the fediverse creates technical difficulties regarding privacy, but we can't even make a best effort so its not trivial for harassers?
All credit to you for advocating for needs of marginalized groups for protected spaces to communicate, but the fediverse simply isn't the right tool for that. It's entire philosophy, design and implementation is centered around making everything public, from posts and comments to votes and moderation actions.
Asking the fediverse, or the activitypub protocol to allow blocking a user from responding at all is rather like asking a car to be a bike. It's just not what it is. I can't really concieve any way of making a decentralized public forum work like that as there is no central point that can control permissions. It might be possible to design a system where communities can control membership and posting priviledges, but even then, if it's distributed, it would take very little for a hostile instance to simply ignore any central control and display its users posts locally, leading to the same effect as if you just mute them, leaving them visible to others, albiet only on their instance or others that cooperate with it.
I think that those who are in need of a controlled system should probably be looking at a centralized system that is run and controlled by someone, or a group, that they trust. That would give them the best chance to keep discussions private, and access to read or post controlled. Read access would need to be controlled too, or their discussions can just be mirrored to a hostile server and harassment can occur there where the poster is unaware, just as if they'd muted them.
-
I'm not totally sure about the chronology, but I think that the "old->new" block change on Reddit may have been due to calls from Twitter users. Most of the people I saw back on Reddit complaining about the old behavior prior to the change were saying "on Twitter, blocked users can't respond".
On Reddit, the site is basically split up into a series of forums, subreddits. On the Threadiverse, same idea, but the term is communities. And that's the basic unit of moderation --- that is, people set up a set of rules for how what is permitted on a given community, and most restrictions arise from that. There are Reddit sitewide restrictions (and here, instancewide), but those don't usually play a huge role compared to the community-level things.
So, on Twitter --- and I've never made a Twitter account, and don't spend much time using it, but I believe I've got a reasonable handle on how it works --- there's no concept of a topic-specific forum. The entire site is user-centric. Comments don't live in forums talking about a topic; they only are associated with the text in them and with the parent comment. So if you're on Twitter, there has to be some level of content moderation unless you want to only have sitewide restrictions. On Twitter, having a user be able to act as "moderator" for responses makes a lot more sense than on Reddit, because Twitter lacks an analog to subreddit moderators.
So Twitter users, who were accustomed to having a "block" feature, naturally found Reddit's "block" feature, which did something different from what they were used to, to be confusing. They click "block", and what it actually does is not what they expect --- and worse, at a surface glance, the behavior is the same. They think that they're acting as a moderator, but they're just controlling visibility of comments to themselves. Then they have an unpleasant surprise when they realize that what they've been doing isn't what they think that they've been doing.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Yeah, looking through a Twitter's user lens I can see why they're confused. What on Reddit was a block, on Twitter would be a Mute. Maybe they should call it that.
-
This assumes I'm married to having a block that is exactly like reddit, which I'm not. I just replied to you in another thread with a suggestion that more or less accounts for all of these concerns.
It cant account for "simply asking loaded questions with ultimatums then blocking the person" but that seems like it'd only be a problem in communities where the mods were already in on it, right? Otherwise these people would just be banned by the mods for clearly bullying. If mods are able to do their jobs, as you say they are, anyways. would mods not be able to handle this?you have repeatedly explicitly stated how unqualified I am to be a mod, and here you are telling me to be a mod.
You sound like you want to be a mod but the worst kind of biased one.
They want the ability to police others just due to them conversing with them.
you don’t want the responsibility, just a bit of the power.why are you telling me to be a mod then?
you think that I'll make a bunch of people miserable, that will teach me some kind of lesson? if not, then what?
were the admins of lemm.ee lying about it all? were the old reddit mods lying about it before the mod purge?
i dont get what your goal with telling me to mod something.why are you telling me to be a mod then?
Because that is how people learn.
-
This sounds like the words of an abuser.
That’s just an unhinged thing to say.
-
and finally, what if we had invite-only/private communities?
We do have those, you can have instances not federate and be invite only. But lets face it discord does that better.
I think that together these are pretty reasonable and would satisfy OP.
None of those are reasonable and most break the very core concept of federation. What you are proposing is to burn down the fediverse in order to protect groups who are not asking for this.
you can have instances not federate and be invite only.
but thats not what I said, private instances are not the same as private communities. I want to be able to join a private community with my existing account, for example.
break the very core concept of federation
elaborate.
I proposed 3 things. how do they break the very core concept of federation more than having a defederated instance just to host a community, forcing people to make a new account?sure, i get the private communities is probably difficult to federate. I dont accept that it "breaks the very core concept of federation".
but community/instance level user blocklists? how could those possibly break the core concept of federation when community banlists exist? -
why are you telling me to be a mod then?
Because that is how people learn.
and what lesson are you hoping that I'll learn from being a mod?
that being a mod is actually easy therefore i shouldn't be concerned with mods being too overworked or not up-to-date on dogwhistles? because that was my concern about mods. it seems really strange that you'd want me to learn that lesson, I'm not sure that thatd help you, your argument, or any lemmy communities. -
All credit to you for advocating for needs of marginalized groups for protected spaces to communicate, but the fediverse simply isn't the right tool for that. It's entire philosophy, design and implementation is centered around making everything public, from posts and comments to votes and moderation actions.
Asking the fediverse, or the activitypub protocol to allow blocking a user from responding at all is rather like asking a car to be a bike. It's just not what it is. I can't really concieve any way of making a decentralized public forum work like that as there is no central point that can control permissions. It might be possible to design a system where communities can control membership and posting priviledges, but even then, if it's distributed, it would take very little for a hostile instance to simply ignore any central control and display its users posts locally, leading to the same effect as if you just mute them, leaving them visible to others, albiet only on their instance or others that cooperate with it.
I think that those who are in need of a controlled system should probably be looking at a centralized system that is run and controlled by someone, or a group, that they trust. That would give them the best chance to keep discussions private, and access to read or post controlled. Read access would need to be controlled too, or their discussions can just be mirrored to a hostile server and harassment can occur there where the poster is unaware, just as if they'd muted them.
communities arent decentralized, though.
so why not have a community that can control who can comment on what posts?the privacy part may be a struggle with the way activitypub works, but i dont see why blocking would be, since community banlists already work.
-
At the time when I became inactive on Reddit, Azerbaijan was building up to finish the Nagarno Karrabach conflict once and for all. There was a lot of blatant anti Armenian, pro Azerbaijani misinformation being posted in relevant discussions (that they were tolerant, only wanting peace, there was never any ethnic cleansing,, ...), and most of those comments went without anyone posting a simple fact check to debunk it.
I suspected that they had been sharing a blocklist and had blocked most of those who would call them out on their bullshit. I didn't bother either since I just expected to be blocked as well and I had basically given up on the platform anyhow. I found swapping accounts to read threads annoying as hell, so it was easier to not comment and just be silently disappointed in humanity.
The fact checks that I did see at the time, were mostly posted as a reply to the top comment of the chain, hoping to go unnoticed by the one spreading misinformation, but that will only work for so long. Reddit is fucked when it comes to discussing political news or gauging public opinion (imo), it's now designed for spreading misinformation (imo again).
-
They shouldn't be able to do that!
A lot of people here never had a stalker and it shows.
-
They shouldn't be able to do that!
Blocking someone is not a tool to silence them. It's a tool to ignore them.
-
This sounds like the words of an abuser.
Please rethink your life
-
Please rethink your life
Huh . I will.
-
Huh . I will.
Keep in mind, they edited their comment. It was pretty scummy before.
-
Keep in mind, they edited their comment. It was pretty scummy before.
Luckily, I actually have a screenshot
-
Luckily, I actually have a screenshot
deleted by creature
