this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2023
100 points (97.2% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54716 readers
243 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Just block the bot, mate
No. Its the amplification of the message that is the problem.
What, why?
Because the more attention the platform gets the more likely corps put time towards shutting it down.
I think you overestimate how hidden we are. Anyway if anyone doesn't want it, they can tag their post to skip it.
I would agree with this but I still think having an opt-out for bot replies is important. That opt-out shouldn't be compliance.
If blocking the bot prevented their interaction with users and the posts/comments those users make that would be a good solution, but as is blocking is just an "eww I don't like this, I don't want to see it" instead of "This entity will not be able to interract with my account/posts". In this case there is concern regarding the bot's behavior, and the unwanted exposure it gives to users who may not want it, which blocking doesn't solve because it doesn't provide an opt-out from replies, just to stop seeing the replies.
If you don't want the bot to interact with your post you can just hashtag your post accordingly
That's not opt out, that's compliance. People are able to not hashtag posts on Mastodon.
Community rules vs personal action