Seriously what's that idea?
-
I needed to step away for a week because this comment section was giving me anxiety.
I know we both agreed the system is not perfect.
I haven't come up with a solution
and you refuse to acknowledge that treating OP like dog shit isn't an appropriate reaction for a non-technical user complaining about the confusion behaviour of a poorly named feature.\I came into this conversation because people kept mocking OP. I've been pulled off on tangents fighting about stupid shit because I can't keep my eye on the ball worth shit, but that's basically it. People are dragging OP for daring point out that the way "block" works here is confusing and feels bad to use.
Even if it cannot be implemented, it is not unreasonable for a user to request it.I also absolutely refuse to acknowledge that blocking is antithetical to decentralized systems. Just because it's not possible with the current design of activity pub doesn't mean that it's not possible in other decentralized systems. I'm not looking for perfection, I'm looking for improvement.
Here:
In mastodon, if Alice from instance A follows Bob from instance B, then instance B will send Bob's posts to A. In addition to that, when B sends Bob's posts to A, it can also send new block requests.
These block requests are public, and it is up to the subscribing instance to honor them, but it's most of the way there, and instance admins can choose to defederate with instances that don't honor it (like they already do with malicious instances).
Lemmy isn't mastodon, but it still uses activitypub, so decentralization isn't the limiting factor here.
With Lemmy it's actually more enforceable, since content in a community is owned by the instance hosting that community. If Charlie is on instance C, and tries to reply to Bob's post on instance A, instance A could have subscribed to Bob's blocklist, and will reject Charlie's reply because it's in reply to Bob's post. On Lemmy it doesn't even matter if Charlie's instance is malicious or not, as long as A isn't.
Malicious is the wrong word, but I think you get the idea.wrote last edited by [email protected]I haven't come up with a solution
and you refuse to acknowledge that treating OP like dog shit isn't an appropriate reaction for a non-technical user complaining about the confusion behaviour of a poorly named feature.\Uh... ok?
Treating OP like dogshit is bad.
I ... think that most people did their best to politely and cordially try to explain why their suggestion is silly, and then they, and also you as a white knight, kept persisting in not understanding or trusting the explanations given as to why it is a silly suggestion, and now you are apparently having a nervous breakdown from the idea that you and OP could be uninformed about something, and/or you seem to be more concerned with how your feelings have been hurt and how you do not feel validated.
If you and OP would have just listened to what me and others were saying initially, instead of being antagonistic and demanding and entitled about topics you do not understand, without offering any practically useful ideas, then you probably would not have annoyed as many people.
People are dragging OP for daring point out that the way "block" works here is confusing and feels bad to use.
I mean, its confusing if you're used to a different paradigm.
A centralized paradigm.
A corporate top down paradigm.
Feels bad to use?
I mean, subjective, but also user feedback is valuable, but also, a whole bunch of people explained all this rather politely, initially.
Even if it cannot be implemented, it is not unreasonable for a user to request it.
Yep, I agree, and this is why many people did their best to explain why this a request that is nigh impossible to implement.
Were some of those people kinda mean, after further being met with a dismissive or tone policing attitude?
Sure!
I guess you've never interacted with an actual developer before, who isn't also their own PR department.
You think having a conversation about software architecture is anxiety inducing?
Welcome to nearly every single meeting a senior dev is in almost every single day, often more than one.
Tends to make people a bit testy, when dealing with inexperienced people who waste their time and do not get to the point.
But hey, you have an actual idea this time, and I do genuinely appreciate that, so lets go through that.
In mastodon, if Alice from instance A follows Bob from instance B, then instance B will send Bob's posts to A. In addition to that, when B sends Bob's posts to A, it can also send new block requests.
These block requests are public, and it is up to the subscribing instance to honor them, but it's most of the way there, and instance admins can choose to defederate with instances that don't honor it (like they already do with malicious instances).
I... ok... so then you still run into this problem:
Alice blocks Bob.
Bob views Mastadon as a guest, or makes a new account, on either instance A or B.
Bob can now see everything Alice posts.
I believe you have already argued, or someone did, that throwing up ... that Bob would have to do that, this is a meaningful hinderence to at least prevent some users from doing so, that this existing is better than it not existing.
It is good to point out that Mastadon is doing this.
This does show that at least a technical implementation of an attempt at the desired feature with the desired effect exists, imperfect as it is.
I would argue though that this is nowhere near as effective as ... people seem to think it is, and really is just a palliative, a placebo, to make people feel as if they are in control of who can see their posts, when it is in actuality very trivial to bypass, and thus you would be doing more 'security theatre' than actual 'security'.
In that sense, I feel that such a 'Block' feature is actually morally bad, as it is a form of lying, providing false promises.
I would, and have argued that the only way to actually ensure that your posts, comments, whatever, are only seen by who you want them to be seen by... well, that requires something like a centralized, exclusionary paradigm:
No one can see anything on any ActPub based anything ... unless they are logged in, and they are logged in to some kind of an account that has been some kind of validated through some kind of validation system that is widely and at nearly universally adopted.
But, that is kind of antithetical to the concept of a public oriented platform.
Maybe another solution could be something like a customizable tiered permission system:
Most posts from Alice are 'public', others are reserved only for those following Alice, others are reserved for only those whom Alice has added to some kind of white list, somewhat analagous to a group chat, or... patreon posts you can only see if you are whatever tier of paid member.
With that kind of a paradigm, you would also have to do some kind of distribution of an encryption key system to go along with this, so that uh I guess Doug is in Alice's white listed or allow listed tier of close friends, and she has one half of the encryption key and Doug is given the other, and then also, whenever Alice removes I dunno, Erica from this group, this also prompts all of the encryptn keys to be remade and redistributed so that Doug gets a new key and Erica's key no longer works.
This... is ... maybe possible, to make work with ActPub, but would be a toooon of work to implement and test, at least speaking for myself and my own coding abilities, on my own.
Hence why I at one point said 'pay me $50 an hour'.
IIRC, this is closer to the concept that Google had for their failed social media network, Google+, where everything was....well, ultimately centralized on the backend, but the user experience was that of a bunch of people managing their personal existence within or without of a bunch of different 'circles'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%2B
So there, there is an idea, of encrypted content only visible to a select group of users, and a whole system of disseminating encryption keys and encrypted messages, that is maybe actually compatible with ActPub, that could maybe be developed as an addon or the mainline lemmy code, that could maybe be a kind of middle ground between 'basically totally permissive and inclusionary' and 'basically totally exclusive and nonpermissive'.
This again though would be quite a significant undertaking, to do this in a way that would not be chalk full of exploitable flaws to defeat the encryption.
Yeah, this is starting to sound more like trying to make ActPub work more like Signal or Matrix, the more that I think about it....oi vei.
The key element here is that if you want to actually guarantee certain people cannot see some or all of your content, you have to have some kind of a white list / allow list system that by default blocks out anyone who is not specifically trusted.
Otherwise... its as simple as make a new or guest account.
This also is not perfect in that people get all kinds of their account credentials for all kinds of things stolen every single day, accounts do get hijacked, but it is something.
Aside from all that:
Mastadon is much closer to trying to be Facebook or MySpace or Instagram.
So, the culture norms are more oriented toward trying to be about more... stronger, more substantial, more intimate bonds between fewer people, basically, where people tend to connect their actual real world identities more closely, more directly, to their accounts.
Lemmy is different.
Lemmy is much closer to reddit, or old school message boards, or even 4chan, where the norm is closer that you are pseudonymous in a way that is much closer to anonymous, where what is being aimed for is many many more connections to many many more people, but generally in a much more ephemeral, less intimate way.
This is why I was saying if you are serious about this, you would either need to code this yourself, simply because most Lemmy users and devs don't care enough to develop this Mastadon/Insta style Block, or you would need a way to find a dev willing to do this, pay them, convince them to do it somehow, start a lemmy comm or instance dedicated to developing this conceptually, work out actual concrete development guidelines.
'Lemmings' will tend to be culturally different, so to speak, so it will take convincing, you would have to be able to 'sell' the concept to them, it would be a much harder 'sell' than to Mastadon users/devs.
Its just a practical fact, there needs to be a plan for achieving the goal, for maybe discussing what that solution will actually look like, and who is going to actually code it.
I can say that if you maybe want to throw the idea I above outlined at other devs, or some discussion circle or something, feel free, go for it, but I am currently doing physical therapy full time after a series of crippling injuries, and am in no state myself to try to do any serious dev work.
-
Ah, the actual fascist "nobody deserves to be safe" garbage. Just adjust it, you want to use your own personal freedoms as a cludge to undermine the rights of others.
Classic libertarian
the actual fascist “nobody deserves to be safe” garbage
Everybody deserves to be safe. What are you talking about? Someone badmouthing you behind your back doesn't make you "unsafe". Despite what you might try to pretend, words are NOT violence.
Just adjust it, you want to use your own personal freedoms as a cludge to undermine the rights of others.
How? What am I saying that even remotely hints at anything like this?
-
But that's the right off the mod and the admin to express themselves through blocking and defederation. It sounds like you're supporting compelled speech
wrote last edited by [email protected]It sounds like you’re supporting compelled speech
How on earth do you come to that conclusion? Do you even know what "compelled speech" is? What is it?
I know you don't know btw, but I will have a good laugh at you trying to explain it.
-
It sounds like you’re supporting compelled speech
How on earth do you come to that conclusion? Do you even know what "compelled speech" is? What is it?
I know you don't know btw, but I will have a good laugh at you trying to explain it.
You seem to be against letting people control who says what on their own servers.
It's not a stretch to imagine you want that enshrined in law.
Forcing someone to keep content available on their own servers by law is forced speech, because refusing to serve content from their own servers is a form of speech (assuming you're American, because, yanno) (in this case, the forced speech was deemed legal, but still forced speech).You're saying you're not just for the freedom of speech (government cannot silence you) you're anti-censorship (nobody can silence you), which means nothing without the ability to protect it.
-
the actual fascist “nobody deserves to be safe” garbage
Everybody deserves to be safe. What are you talking about? Someone badmouthing you behind your back doesn't make you "unsafe". Despite what you might try to pretend, words are NOT violence.
Just adjust it, you want to use your own personal freedoms as a cludge to undermine the rights of others.
How? What am I saying that even remotely hints at anything like this?
I lampooned your own words to show you how stupid it sounded, not for you to take it seriously. Holy shit man.
-
I haven't come up with a solution
and you refuse to acknowledge that treating OP like dog shit isn't an appropriate reaction for a non-technical user complaining about the confusion behaviour of a poorly named feature.\Uh... ok?
Treating OP like dogshit is bad.
I ... think that most people did their best to politely and cordially try to explain why their suggestion is silly, and then they, and also you as a white knight, kept persisting in not understanding or trusting the explanations given as to why it is a silly suggestion, and now you are apparently having a nervous breakdown from the idea that you and OP could be uninformed about something, and/or you seem to be more concerned with how your feelings have been hurt and how you do not feel validated.
If you and OP would have just listened to what me and others were saying initially, instead of being antagonistic and demanding and entitled about topics you do not understand, without offering any practically useful ideas, then you probably would not have annoyed as many people.
People are dragging OP for daring point out that the way "block" works here is confusing and feels bad to use.
I mean, its confusing if you're used to a different paradigm.
A centralized paradigm.
A corporate top down paradigm.
Feels bad to use?
I mean, subjective, but also user feedback is valuable, but also, a whole bunch of people explained all this rather politely, initially.
Even if it cannot be implemented, it is not unreasonable for a user to request it.
Yep, I agree, and this is why many people did their best to explain why this a request that is nigh impossible to implement.
Were some of those people kinda mean, after further being met with a dismissive or tone policing attitude?
Sure!
I guess you've never interacted with an actual developer before, who isn't also their own PR department.
You think having a conversation about software architecture is anxiety inducing?
Welcome to nearly every single meeting a senior dev is in almost every single day, often more than one.
Tends to make people a bit testy, when dealing with inexperienced people who waste their time and do not get to the point.
But hey, you have an actual idea this time, and I do genuinely appreciate that, so lets go through that.
In mastodon, if Alice from instance A follows Bob from instance B, then instance B will send Bob's posts to A. In addition to that, when B sends Bob's posts to A, it can also send new block requests.
These block requests are public, and it is up to the subscribing instance to honor them, but it's most of the way there, and instance admins can choose to defederate with instances that don't honor it (like they already do with malicious instances).
I... ok... so then you still run into this problem:
Alice blocks Bob.
Bob views Mastadon as a guest, or makes a new account, on either instance A or B.
Bob can now see everything Alice posts.
I believe you have already argued, or someone did, that throwing up ... that Bob would have to do that, this is a meaningful hinderence to at least prevent some users from doing so, that this existing is better than it not existing.
It is good to point out that Mastadon is doing this.
This does show that at least a technical implementation of an attempt at the desired feature with the desired effect exists, imperfect as it is.
I would argue though that this is nowhere near as effective as ... people seem to think it is, and really is just a palliative, a placebo, to make people feel as if they are in control of who can see their posts, when it is in actuality very trivial to bypass, and thus you would be doing more 'security theatre' than actual 'security'.
In that sense, I feel that such a 'Block' feature is actually morally bad, as it is a form of lying, providing false promises.
I would, and have argued that the only way to actually ensure that your posts, comments, whatever, are only seen by who you want them to be seen by... well, that requires something like a centralized, exclusionary paradigm:
No one can see anything on any ActPub based anything ... unless they are logged in, and they are logged in to some kind of an account that has been some kind of validated through some kind of validation system that is widely and at nearly universally adopted.
But, that is kind of antithetical to the concept of a public oriented platform.
Maybe another solution could be something like a customizable tiered permission system:
Most posts from Alice are 'public', others are reserved only for those following Alice, others are reserved for only those whom Alice has added to some kind of white list, somewhat analagous to a group chat, or... patreon posts you can only see if you are whatever tier of paid member.
With that kind of a paradigm, you would also have to do some kind of distribution of an encryption key system to go along with this, so that uh I guess Doug is in Alice's white listed or allow listed tier of close friends, and she has one half of the encryption key and Doug is given the other, and then also, whenever Alice removes I dunno, Erica from this group, this also prompts all of the encryptn keys to be remade and redistributed so that Doug gets a new key and Erica's key no longer works.
This... is ... maybe possible, to make work with ActPub, but would be a toooon of work to implement and test, at least speaking for myself and my own coding abilities, on my own.
Hence why I at one point said 'pay me $50 an hour'.
IIRC, this is closer to the concept that Google had for their failed social media network, Google+, where everything was....well, ultimately centralized on the backend, but the user experience was that of a bunch of people managing their personal existence within or without of a bunch of different 'circles'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%2B
So there, there is an idea, of encrypted content only visible to a select group of users, and a whole system of disseminating encryption keys and encrypted messages, that is maybe actually compatible with ActPub, that could maybe be developed as an addon or the mainline lemmy code, that could maybe be a kind of middle ground between 'basically totally permissive and inclusionary' and 'basically totally exclusive and nonpermissive'.
This again though would be quite a significant undertaking, to do this in a way that would not be chalk full of exploitable flaws to defeat the encryption.
Yeah, this is starting to sound more like trying to make ActPub work more like Signal or Matrix, the more that I think about it....oi vei.
The key element here is that if you want to actually guarantee certain people cannot see some or all of your content, you have to have some kind of a white list / allow list system that by default blocks out anyone who is not specifically trusted.
Otherwise... its as simple as make a new or guest account.
This also is not perfect in that people get all kinds of their account credentials for all kinds of things stolen every single day, accounts do get hijacked, but it is something.
Aside from all that:
Mastadon is much closer to trying to be Facebook or MySpace or Instagram.
So, the culture norms are more oriented toward trying to be about more... stronger, more substantial, more intimate bonds between fewer people, basically, where people tend to connect their actual real world identities more closely, more directly, to their accounts.
Lemmy is different.
Lemmy is much closer to reddit, or old school message boards, or even 4chan, where the norm is closer that you are pseudonymous in a way that is much closer to anonymous, where what is being aimed for is many many more connections to many many more people, but generally in a much more ephemeral, less intimate way.
This is why I was saying if you are serious about this, you would either need to code this yourself, simply because most Lemmy users and devs don't care enough to develop this Mastadon/Insta style Block, or you would need a way to find a dev willing to do this, pay them, convince them to do it somehow, start a lemmy comm or instance dedicated to developing this conceptually, work out actual concrete development guidelines.
'Lemmings' will tend to be culturally different, so to speak, so it will take convincing, you would have to be able to 'sell' the concept to them, it would be a much harder 'sell' than to Mastadon users/devs.
Its just a practical fact, there needs to be a plan for achieving the goal, for maybe discussing what that solution will actually look like, and who is going to actually code it.
I can say that if you maybe want to throw the idea I above outlined at other devs, or some discussion circle or something, feel free, go for it, but I am currently doing physical therapy full time after a series of crippling injuries, and am in no state myself to try to do any serious dev work.
why it is a silly suggestion
Once again, just because it is technically unfeasible doesn't make the idea bad. Just because a system is limited in its ability doesn't mean that what the user wants isn't a desirable thing to have. That's I think the sticking point in this specific thread with you specifically.
People aren't saying "we can't do that" they're saying "that's a bad idea because we can't do that", and there is a pretty significant difference between those.I guess you've never interacted with an actual developer before, who isn't also their own PR department
Pretty baseless statement, but there is nothing I could say to convince you of my credentials.
It's not the technical discussion that is anxiety producing, it's how some of these threads got wildly out of pocket, and I was getting way too emotional and it didn't feel good. I didn't open the app for like a week because seeing those waiting notifications of people hurling insults was not was getting me into a bad place. Testy is fine, this was not testy.I feel that such a 'Block' feature is actually morally bad, as it is a form of lying, providing false promises
This is exactly how I feel about the current "block" functionality. Most platforms would call this "mute" or "hide" to indicate that the effect is purely on your side and it has not impacted them at all.
Which is exactly what OP is talking about in this post.the only way to actually ensure
[...]
if you want to actually guarantee certain people cannot see some or allDon't let perfect be the enemy of good.
We don't even have to use the word "block". We can use another term to indicate this doesn't block them from seeing, only from taking action.
And besides, your concern about visibility is already a "problem" on other networks like reddit, and the people asking for this are ok with that.
And really, I'm not against the current block (mute), it's just poorly named and insufficient by itself. It could be combined with a reddit style block.
Maybe you could tap "block" and then be presented with 3 checkboxes: block them from my feed, block them from interacting with my posts, block them from seeing my posts.Private communities is a whole other topic (which is where I actually became convinced of this, I used to be totally on your side).
This public-only (almost) design is going to exclude people who would be really nice to include. I know that it doesn't have to be for everyone, but I think it hurts the culture to exclude the groups who would benefit from these privacy and protection functions.For a long time I've been toying with the idea of a public group chat where privacy comes from out of band exchange of private keys and identifying information, but without all the crazy complexity of duplicating each message for each chat member (which, at the time I was thinking about it, is how signal did it. Idk what they do now). But cryptography is not my strength so the design never really left the basics concepts stage. But this is a pretty significant tangent.
Anyways, I'm sure I'm not the first person to suggest this design to the devs, after all as you mentioned, this is more or less what mastodon does. The devs chose not to take action on it. I can still be unhappy about that lol
-
You seem to be against letting people control who says what on their own servers.
It's not a stretch to imagine you want that enshrined in law.
Forcing someone to keep content available on their own servers by law is forced speech, because refusing to serve content from their own servers is a form of speech (assuming you're American, because, yanno) (in this case, the forced speech was deemed legal, but still forced speech).You're saying you're not just for the freedom of speech (government cannot silence you) you're anti-censorship (nobody can silence you), which means nothing without the ability to protect it.
So me wanting free speech means that I want compelled speech, in your mind?
-
I lampooned your own words to show you how stupid it sounded, not for you to take it seriously. Holy shit man.
No, you made yourself look stupid by saying stupid things that made no sense. What I said is perfectly clear and makes sense.
-
You're right, that was a different conversation. And I'm not part of that group so I can't say for sure.
What I'm trying to do is take what I learned there and extrapolate it. I think there is some overlap.
At the very least, I don't think OP deserves to be dragged like they were for what is to me a pretty reasonable take. In Lemmy, blocking someone acts like getting blocked on pretty much every platform, which is going to be confusing for manyAt the very least, I don’t think OP deserves to be dragged like they were for what is to me a pretty reasonable take. In Lemmy, blocking someone acts like getting blocked on pretty much every platform, which is going to be confusing for many
I can agree that I understand the confusion and I also don't think the OP deserves to get dragged for their initial post, but I think their opinion is fundamentally flawed and the reason they got dragged is mostly because they went in the comments trying to defend their opinion. The problem is that the term "Social Media" has gotten so hackneyed that multiple different things are all called Social Media and the rules of the most common version are expected in the others.
Growing up Social Media referred to Social Networks which are user-centric platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Myspace (I guess potentially TikTok) where you create an account which is central to your experience on the website. Connections on these platforms are made through creating individual friends lists and following specific users which makes it super easy to block someone in the manner described. Now basically everything is called Social Media, including forums and image boards. On an image board or forum you might have to create an account, but the experience was more defined by going through an index of posts not connected to your account. Places like Digg, Reddit, Tumblr, Pinterest, 4chan, and any random ass forum functioned pretty similarly to how blocking works on Lemmy. In most cases the blocked user can still see any public posts you make; they may not be able to search for your posts within their account or respond to your messages directly, but they typically could still see your posts and respond to other people in a thread (even your own). The only exception to this is if they posted on a forum (or subreddit/instance/board/blog) you moderated or otherwise controlled. In some cases Social Networks and image boards are similar, if you run a blog on Tumblr it functions more like a Social Network but if you only browse other people's public blogs then it functions like an image board
The whole argument is basically "Why don't forums work like social networks?"
-
So me wanting free speech means that I want compelled speech, in your mind?
Lol so forcing other people to serve your content is free speech, in your mind?
