Seriously what's that idea?
-
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.
-
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.
That's okay, but it should be visible to everyone that you agreed or disagreed, for the sake of clarity, honesty and responsible communication. Ideally, votes wouldn't exist (and if you don't have anything to say in the forum or simply don't want to, well, you just don't and you lurk quietly), but if such low-level ways of engaging with the topic are allowed then we shouldn't be afraid to at least have that vote public, IMO.
-
A lot of people here never had a stalker and it shows.
If you're concerned about someone being able to see your activity, no blacklisting-based system --- which is what OP is talking about in terms of "blocking" would be -- on a system without expensive identifiers (which the Threadiverse is not and Reddit is not --- both let you make new accounts at zero cost) will do much of anything. All someone has to do is to just make a new account to monitor your activity. Or, hell, Reddit and a ton of Threadiverse instances provide anonymous access. Not to mention that on the Threadiverse, anyone who sets up an instance can see all the data being exchanged anyway.
In practice, if your concern is your activity being monitored, then you're going to have to use a whitelisting-based system. Like, the Fediverse would need to have something like invite-only communities, and the whole protocol would have to be changed in a major way.
-
That's okay, but it should be visible to everyone that you agreed or disagreed, for the sake of clarity, honesty and responsible communication. Ideally, votes wouldn't exist (and if you don't have anything to say in the forum or simply don't want to, well, you just don't and you lurk quietly), but if such low-level ways of engaging with the topic are allowed then we shouldn't be afraid to at least have that vote public, IMO.
for the sake of clarity, honesty and responsible communication
No? We're already using pseudonyms, which is intentional and has a purpose.
at least have that vote public, IMO
It already is public, just not easily accessible. Why do you want to know all the votes? A voter is not an active part of the conversation. I'd equate it to the audience cheering or booing on a talk show.
For the ones actively participating you can read their comments and it'll be obvious what their stance is.
Ideally, votes wouldn’t exist
Absolutely disagree on that one. Votes are a fundamental part of this type of social media, and the low-pressure interaction of up/down votes encourages a large number of people to interact and rank content. This shifts focus from the loudest/most active people dominating the space to the most widely appreciated content dominating the space. This is explicitly one of the parts I like about it.
Also, more replies are not necessarily useful. Consider all the "This!" or "Same!" comments from Reddit. An up/down vote is much more information dense.
Honestly it sounds to me like you actually want a forum based on fundamentally different mechanics. Technically it wouldn't be that difficult to create a Lemmy clone that just scraps votes entirely from the UI, but you'd need a new way to rank content.
In an ideal scenario I'd actually prefer the votes be entirely anonymous, but that's just not feasible with the fediverse system.
-
If you're concerned about someone being able to see your activity, no blacklisting-based system --- which is what OP is talking about in terms of "blocking" would be -- on a system without expensive identifiers (which the Threadiverse is not and Reddit is not --- both let you make new accounts at zero cost) will do much of anything. All someone has to do is to just make a new account to monitor your activity. Or, hell, Reddit and a ton of Threadiverse instances provide anonymous access. Not to mention that on the Threadiverse, anyone who sets up an instance can see all the data being exchanged anyway.
In practice, if your concern is your activity being monitored, then you're going to have to use a whitelisting-based system. Like, the Fediverse would need to have something like invite-only communities, and the whole protocol would have to be changed in a major way.
Some stalkers might notice and circumvent, but most won't because in their mind they aren't doing anything wrong so why would they check if they got blocked. But apparently if the solution is not perfect it's not worth doing anything to deter it seems.
-
Blocking someone is not a tool to silence them. It's a tool to ignore them.
I could see someone being frustrated that from a third party, it looks like you are not responding to a reply and that person could spin that as a concession that they were right
I could see a compromise, where a direct reply from such a blocked/muted person is allowed, but indicated so that people are aware a response could not have been done.
-
They shouldn't be able to do that!
That's why I love Voyager for mobile viewing. Not sure the feature's exclusivity, but you can tag people and add up or downvotes to their accounts total. For instance, you were at +70 upvotes from me. But if I didn't like you, I could add a tag to your account with why or whatever, and add -1000, effectively highlighting, for me, how much less I enjoy your input compared to others. It doesn't hide their bullshit but makes it super obvious who sucks complete ass!
Along the vein of blocking, I like how lemmy does it. I can see the block person left a comment and choose to read it or ignore it.
-
That's why I love Voyager for mobile viewing. Not sure the feature's exclusivity, but you can tag people and add up or downvotes to their accounts total. For instance, you were at +70 upvotes from me. But if I didn't like you, I could add a tag to your account with why or whatever, and add -1000, effectively highlighting, for me, how much less I enjoy your input compared to others. It doesn't hide their bullshit but makes it super obvious who sucks complete ass!
Along the vein of blocking, I like how lemmy does it. I can see the block person left a comment and choose to read it or ignore it.
Thanks that's useful!
-
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.
Ok, so you've chosen 'we are both going to agree that perfect would be better than not perfect'.
For what it's worth, I'm not downvoting you.
But I will be blunt: I don't think you are capable of describing a coherent, implementable version of what you want.
What is your proposal for what, precisely, should be changed?
How are you, or ... apparently you would be asking other people to do this ... how is this change going to be compatible with lemmy as it currently exists, such that every instance could easily adopt it as an update... or... some instances could adopt it as a compatible sort of 'add-on' or 'plugin'?
Who is going to implement that change, or, how is that change going to come about?
Seeing that you don't appear to be willing to code this yourself... how are you going to convince someone else to do this?
What I am saying is 'OP actually does want an unreasonable thing, not from the standpoint of an end user of software who is.concerned about their safety in the abstract, but from the standpoint of being able to outline something that might actually work and also ever be designed.'
What they are asking for is more or less an entirely fundamentally different system than lemmy. They are asking for an entirely new kind of software that works from a fundamentally different paradigm.
Its more like uh, outlining that cars could be safer, and they think they are asking for airbags to be installed, but what they are actually asking for is someone to design a public transportation system.
Thats about the scale and scope of how mechanisticly different what they are asking for is, from how things curfently work... even though, to them, its just a 'way of how they get from point a to point b', and thus seems trivial to them.
-
If I block someone, and one of their posts or comments gets reported for moderation, it won't allow the moderation tools to work. I have to un-block them to moderate them.
that's fully expected, if you don't want to see someone's posts why would you be able to moderate those posts?
-
here, let me link you to the paradox of tolerance, you absolute mudcake.
try learning something.
The paradox of tolerance doesn't mean what you think it means.
The "paradox" is fully resolved if you have strong guarantees for the tolerance you care about: fundamental freedoms and equality, and punishments for those who attempt to subvert them. So you don't "tolerate" people who are in the process of dismantling that tolerance by advocating for or engaging directly in harassment of trans people (for example) but you also don't punish people who, for example, are opposed to trans women participating in womens' sports - because while equal participation ought to be a guaranteed matter of equality, we've also broadly agreed as a society that sports ought to be split, and the precise nature of that split is not a guaranteed matter of equality.
Applying this to Lemmy, there is no risk to tolerance in allowing a discussion about sex, gender and sports. There is a risk to tolerance in allowing a "discussion" in which trans people are generally disparaged on the basis of their transition, because it can lead to actions which go beyond mere speech.
To look at this another way, rather than linking a wikipedia page with a dumb insult and saying "try learning something", you'd be better off identifying the behaviour you don't want to see, what action you want to take about it, and why it's justified based on the consequences of not taking that action. "Tolerance" and "intolerance" are vague terms, so have a more productive discussion by being precise.
