They shouldn’t be able to do that!
I’m more annoyed by losing the “Block Community” button when a sub’s admin blocks me.
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.
How do you do that? I’m on voyager and didn’t know about this. I would love tags
Thanks that’s useful!
You’re +8 for me!
And you cook better than you insult!
That could be. I guess I’ve got a tag!
But I know what I mean, have a good day!
And its on froid
Blocking someone is not a tool to silence them. It’s a tool to ignore them.
Yeah, by blocking them you are saying YOU don’t want to see their posts. That doesn’t mean you get to make that decision for everyone else. I don’t see the problem here.
I never had a twitter account, but made a bsky account just to support people moving away from there even though I’d them they move to mastodon.
Anyway, I saw a post claiming a certain fetish term was now forbidden because it was being used a slur. I commented that I’ve only ever heard it used to refer to a real person when the person in question was using it to describe themselves. I got some positive responses, but the ended up getting blocked from replying when they disagreed with me. Can 3rd parties see blocks or did it just look like I chickened out?
I didn’t care for that and I think these little “features” of twitter that people have gotten use to has twisted how to interact with other people. On reddit or lemmy, the topic is the main focus and the people managing the topic should be the only ones who control what gets said there. With twitter and bsky, the opening post is the main focus and they get control of what gets said. I prefer the former over that latter.
A block should also be able to prevent them from seeing your activity. That would not constitute silencing the blocked individual as they can still go anywhere and talk to/see anyone else on the fediverse, just not you.
No, I don’t think that would be good. So for example if there was a guy who thought we should all be eating lead. And every time he posts you put up facts about how eating lead was poisonous. And then the lead guy blocked you. Then every time the lead guy posts about how everyone should eat lead, you wouldn’t see it and so you wouldn’t be able to reply with how lead is poisonous.
So if the lead guy blocked everyone who disagreed with him publicly. Then the lead guy can just post whatever they want and no who knew lead was poisonous would reply because they wouldn’t see the post. So others who didn’t know lead was poisonous would start seeing this guy posting about eating lead without being challenged. And so they might think it’s a good thing.
There is a need for more precise terminology. We should refer to “block” as stopping someone from interacting with you or your submissions/comments and “mute”/“ignore” as making it so that the person’s own actions cannot be seen by you.
I think communicating that someone is blocked is a useful part of blocking. Even if it’s just a notification after comment “you have a blocked reply, it will not be visible to the poster”.
Someone else in this thread pointed out that this would just encourage bad actors to make sock puppet accounts to get around being blocked.
Bad actors already do that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
This sounds like the words of an abuser.
That’s just an unhinged thing to say.
Please rethink your life
Huh . I will.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creature
derbated buh crater
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?
From a technical standpoint, doing it in another way requires your blocks to be public.
He and you are both publishing individual comments with metadata telling which thread and where in it that these entries go. The instance hosting the community simply pull all these entries together. To cut off that response then your instance must tell that hosting instance to detach that reply from the blocked user. Currently Lemmy doesn’t support any such thing.
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?
Evento better, with blahaj and hookers.*
they block evade by using another account to restart the conservation, or they get mad if you block them, then they try to mass report you.
Bluesky differentiates between blocking and muting. Bluesky blocking is like what you describe, which is also how Reddit blocking works. Bluesky muting is like Lemmy blocking, where they can engage on your posts, you just won’t see it.
However bluesky is not decentralized. This is handled by their appview, which other bluesky clients might change
I don’t mind it, but if the devs change it I hope they don’t take the Reddit route that prevents you from replying to any comment chain the user is in, especially with how small Lemmy is. Direct replies I can understand.
i had several instances on reddit, where the person commenting evaded a block by using a new account.
I wish we had time-limited blocks / mutes on Lemmy. I use them all the time on Mastodon to exit a conversation when I am getting to short. If it really matters, I can revisit after a fortnight of reflection.
How is it not fair? You get to decide what you can see and say. You don’t get to decide what I can see and say.
How the Threadiverse works today — blocking hides content from blocked users, but doesn’t affect their ability to comment — is how Reddit originally worked, and I think that it was by far a better system.
Reddit only adopted the “you can’t reply to a comment from someone who has blocked you” system later. What it produced was people getting into fights, adding one more comment, and then blocking the other person so that they’d be unable to respond, so it looked like the other person had conceded the point.
A thousand percent this.
Reddit’s new system makes a ton of sense until you see it in action in a cat fight with the blocked user having to edit their previous comment to clarify they’re now unable to respond to anything the other user is saying and everything turns into a mess.While I could totally agree neither method is perfect, it only takes one heated thread on Reddit to see why (IMO) this new method is much worse than the previous.
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 rule 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.
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.
I’d also add, for people who feel that they don’t have a good way to “hang up” on a conversation that they don’t want to be participating any further without making it look like they agree with the other user, the convention is to comment something like this:
“I don’t think that we’re likely to agree on this point, so I’m afraid that we’re going to have to agree to disagree.”
That way, it’s clear to everyone else reading the thread that the breaking-off user isn’t simply conceding the point, but it also doesn’t prevent the other user from responding (or, for that matter, other users from taking up the thread).
EDIT: Also, on Reddit, I remember a lot of users who had been subjected to the “one more comment and a block” stuff then going to try to find random other comments in the thread where other users might see their comment, responding to those comments complaining that the other user had blocked them, and then posting their comment there, which tended to turn the whole thread into an ugly soup.
Also, with Reddit’s new system, at least with some clients and if I remember correctly, the old Web UI, there was no clear indication as to why the comment didn’t take effect — it looked like some sort of internal error, which tended to frustrate users. Obviously, that’s not a fundamental problem with a “blocking a user also prevents responding” system, but it was a pretty frustrating aspect of Reddit’s implementation of it.
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?
When you click on a report, it should bypass any block, it doesn’t.
This isn’t organically viewing a post, it’s responding to a report and it is visible when reported.
This is why moderators should use a separate account for moderation actions than their main
And why for a long time I didnt block people. Especially when I was modding TenForward
Because the alternative is easily abused, see all the issues Reddit has with this type of block mechanism.
The core of the problem as I see it is, this gives every user limited moderation powers in every sub, the extent of that power is determined mainly just by how much they post and comment (blocked users can’t comment under their posts, and can’t reply to any comment in a chain started by the blocker), and the extent to which it is happening is invisible to most users. People advocating for this seem to assume it will be used mostly defensively, to prevent harassment, but the feature has way more utility offensively, and it’s totally unaccountable. If there is something someone is saying (not even necessarily to you) that you don’t like for whatever reason, whether or not it’s against the rules and regardless of what anyone else thinks about it, you can partially silence them by blocking and then working to get engagement in the same spaces they comment in. Think about if this was implemented on Lemmy, lots of communities have only one or a few people making all the posts, if one or more of them blocked you that’s almost the same as a ban. It doesn’t make it better that the people making those posts are often also moderators, because it would be a way to pseudo ban people without it showing up in the mod log.
Moderation of online discussion spaces should be transparent and accountable, it shouldn’t be a covert arms race between users.
The current system doesn’t stop that version of abuse though it just means it can only happen in the opposite direction. The abuse you’re implying still occurs.
Seems to me you shouldn’t be able to reply directly but you should be able to see the comments that way you could reply elsewhere in the thread if you want. Or the other people in the comment chain even.
I do think it would be less bad if it only prevented direct comment replies, and not replies to top level posts or replies to other comments by other people further down the thread.
I don’t understand what you mean by it still occurs in the other direction though. Nobody can prevent people from commenting except moderators and admins, which is how it should be. Mute style blocking isn’t moderation because it doesn’t affect anyone’s ability to comment, it’s effectively the same as a client level filter.
Well think about it, you say it’s abuse because someone can use blocking to change how conversations work right? They can make replies the other person can’t respond. That same thing can still happen. Yeah harass someone to the point they block you and then you continue to harass them by making replies that they can’t see and changing how the conversation of this forum works. It’s the exact same thing. Just opposite direction.
I’ve blocked a bunch of people, who may be replying to me with harassing comments, but that isn’t influencing what I do. It might influence the overall conversation, and that could be a problem, but I think the way that problem is dealt with should be public, because the problem is public, it’s not something that’s exclusively my problem. I don’t think I should have the authority to act to police any arbitrary community like that, especially without anyone being able to know that I’m doing it.
yea it usually ends with the troll commenting"for your information it spelled like this or its discussed this way" followed with insulting comment" go back and learn how to do this or that before commmenting" i immediately block grammar nazis too.
