1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
They shouldn't be able to do that!
Lemmy (ActivityPub protocol) doesn't have great implementation for getting the last word. There's no feature that allows you to send a message, verify they read it, then prevent them from responding.
When I block someone, I don't want to see their posts anymore. I know they can still comment on my posts, but that's okay, I just don't see their contributions any longer to make me angry.
I'm more annoyed by losing the "Block Community" button when a sub's admin blocks me.
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.
Reddit also blocks you from replying. Not just to that person, but to the comment thread in general. So many people do the insult-block to "win" a conversation.
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".
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.
If you don't want everyone seeing your activity, don't post it on a public internet system. Blocks can easily be circumvented.
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.
Discord recently made this distinction; it makes sense imo
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.
Why not, exactly? I think with the way the fediverse works, this would be a needless hassle for them to program this in. IIRC, posts are all separate and are just referring to another post. I think it'll be up to their server on whether or not to honour that block (your server could possibly sever the link on it's frontend, but that won't change that the person linked your post to theirs)
And even if you could, they could still post a screenshot locally or write stuff about you.
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).
A lot of people here never had a stalker and it shows.
I don't think blocking is an effective measure.
Precisely because blocking here doesn't do anything really. On a different platform the feature made me invisible to the person and it helped reduce their obsession with me massively. Out of sight out of mind is true for a lot of people.
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.
You can choose to federate with a specific server. I believe some mastodon servers would honour requests to only share with specific accounts, but that's it.
You could possibly have some encryption key shenanigans go on at the client side and build it ontop of the fediverse. It might be possible.
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?
Blocking means you can't see them. It makes them non existent to you. It doesn't hide you from them. It's working as intended.
I'd call that "muting" rather than blocking.
And it leaves vulnerable communities open to abuse, because they're unable to police their communities and kick out harassers.
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.
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.
I think the way it works is good.
If the blocked user browses on another account (or not logged in at all), they can’t tell that you have blocked them.
Bot/spam accounts can’t use the blocking system to stop users who target these accounts to call them out on their disguised malicious behavior. This became a problem on Reddit when they changed their blocking system away from what we have here.
Edit: I guess there is a downside of if so many of the sane users block the same nutjobs, then there won’t be anybody to downvote or refute those nutjobs
That style of blocking makes sense for more personal social media, but I don’t think it fits a public forum like the Threadiverse. On Reddit, bad actors were able to weaponize blocking to hide from anyone who would disagree with them, anyone who would push back against misinformation. That did a lot more harm than good.
Everything you post here is public, and you should expect that anyone can see it, even people you do not like. If you don't want to see someone you don't like, that's what blocking is for, but you shouldn't expect to be able control who can see your posts when they're all public to begin with.
If something is so sensitive that you think you need to hide it from someone you don't like, then this probably isn't the platform to post it on at all.
Blocks work the way you want them to on Reddit. And all it did was allow people with fringe political beliefs and misinformation fetishes to stop decent people from refuting them. This is for the best.
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.
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.
Seems ideal, then they won’t know they’re blocked.
That should be a separate function: Muting, Ignoring, or maybe "Shadow Blocking".
Regular Blocking should prevent direct replies completely.
EDIT: There also should be an option to make all or specific comments "Viewable by logged in & unblocked users only". For maximum separation.
The posting server would have to honour that, though
Could be something negotiated between servers to continue being federated with them. I don't think it'd be a huge ask.
Worst case though, only people within the replier's server would see their replies. That's better than nothing.
Well, no, as the replier will be federating that reply.
This is like putting up a tall fence to obscure the view of your neighbors and being surprised they don't cease existing on the other side
You don't want to just block users, you want to unilaterally ban them
There's a difference between fair and just
