Seriously what's that idea?
-
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
-
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.wrote last edited by [email protected]fucking crazy puritan.
Where did this come from? lol What a bizarre thing to say over this.m, especially when you’re the one crying over people saying mean things behind your back lol.
and guess what: the developers of lemmy can change it if they want to.
No shit sherlock.
but meanwhile here you are, insulting people for having differing opinions
Where am I doing that?
-
here, let me link you to the paradox of tolerance, you absolute mudcake.
try learning something.
lol ah the classic crybaby wannabe-fascist "paradox of tolerance" garbage. Just admit it, you can't handle people who have different beliefs and opinions to your own because you can't defend your own with any intelligence.
Classic leftist.
-
Yeah, fuck those minorities, amirite? They don't deserve to use Lemmy anyways\
- you, a couple min ago
wrote last edited by [email protected]I had a feeling playing the victim and name calling was coming next after your last message.
But just in case anyone arguing in good faith needs it spelled out: Not every thing has to cater to every audience. Lemmy, at least for me, is primarily for sharing information, whether news, opinions or just memes. On such a site, I believe it is more important to avoid echo chambers and misinformation. So it requires a moderator or an admin to ban people. It's not as if Lemmy is an unmoderated hellscape, it just leans more towards free speech over creating perfectly safe spaces than you may like. Avoiding echo chambers and misinformation benefits all users, including minorities. Therefore, every site hast to find a balance for it's use-case. I would expect many people, whether minorities or otherwise, can handle occasional mean words or words they disagree with on their screens. But it is also alright if you are more sensitive or not in a good place psychologically and don't want to deal with this. There are other places on the internet you can go, that do have the kind of blocking you want. Some places will lean towards free speech, some towards heavy moderation. That's the great thing about the internet, not every place has to be the same.
-
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?yes, we all want some censorship.
Speak for yourself.
defederation is censorship.
instance bans are censorship.
community bans are censorship.\
And I disagree with them.
is your position that none of those should be allowed?
My position is that it should all be up to the user. Let me block instances and communities if I don't want to see them. Let me choose what content I want to see. I don't need some mods deciding what is and isn't acceptable based on their ideologies and beliefs, because as we all know and see every day, most abuse that power almost all the time.
if so, thats a wild position to take, but you should say it with your full chest at least.
It's not wild at all, and I have never tried to hide it. I've said it openly many, many times on Lemmy. I think all censorship is bad. Only weak minded people want or need censorship.
Nice attempted "gotcha" though.
-
It also makes Lemmy objectively less safe because it's much less effective at limiting stalking and harassment. Especially since way blocks work on Lemmy isn't clearly communicated to the user.
The solution here is obvious - creating an instance and/or community with stricter moderation rules, much like blåhaj.zone.
Each instance/community has the ability to set their own general rules and whilst (yes) this means that an individual person can't guarantee their "safety" everywhere it does mean anyone can create their own little bubble and then pick & choose which parts of the fediverse to connect with.
The fediverse is at its core a free speech project, which is why I like it. There are many other platforms out there that focus on safety.
-
People who only socialize online are often too cowardly to handle it, as they use downvotes sometimes as a way to disagree/show their disapproval without standing by it, and would be terrified if they had to explain why they did so.
95% of the time when downvoting content it's a question of...
Disagreeing/considering the content bad/thinking the user is behaving poorly.
Also, writing comments takes a lot more time, which (believe it or not) is a limited and valuable resource for most people on the internet.
