Aside from you getting notifications when they reply, i think all the rest is how blocking works on all internet forums (as opposed to social media sites). Like if you block someone on Reddit i believe they can still see your posts, you just don't see theirs.
this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
7 points (100.0% liked)
/kbin meta
5 readers
2 users here now
Magazine dedicated to discussions about the kbin itself. Provide feedback, ask questions, suggest improvements, and engage in conversations related to the platform organization, policies, features, and community dynamics. ---- * Roadmap 2023 * m/kbinDevlog * m/kbinDesign
founded 1 year ago
That is incredibly unuseful as a way to curate how and who all can interact with you.
The way blocking seems to currently work is to the benefit of trolls & sealions.
It would be well improved as a feature were blocked accounts unable to see or reply to posts or profiles of accounts that have them blocked.
I disagree. On a public forum no one should be able to control what content i see and what content i don't see. If you're going around saying bullshit in a public forum, i should be able to see that, and i should be able to post a public reply refuting your bullshit. Otherwise people could post bullshit and block everyone from replying who would show that their post is bullshit. You shouldn't get to block people from rebutting your claims.
EDIT:
Though i could see the usefulness of an automatic tag on their comment saying "the OP has blocked this user, so OP doesn't see this post."
I disagree in turn with you.
If someone is harassing me and not engaging in good faith, I should be able to disengage from them and hide myself from their view.
If I was talking to someone in a park and a third person joined the conversation that's fine. If that person starts being an annoying asshole, I should be able to walk away from the harassment while still maintaining my conversation. Accepting harassment is not a requirement to talk to people, and I should not have to accept harassment from whomever wants to fuck with me for the privilege of talking to people who aren't harassing me.
I also don't consider a site where people shitpost memes to be needing the same "public forum" protections of say a town hall meeting or a politician's official communications.
"Open air free-for-alls" as I am reading you seem to prefer tend also to drive out people with marginalized identities as they leave them open to harassment people from dominate groups members do not get subjected to for just existing.
Further, there is no moral or technical reason a person should not be able to send out a message to "Everyone in the world except for Tom when he is logged in—because fuck that guy."
If that person starts being an annoying asshole, I should be able to walk away from the harassment while still maintaining my conversation
Except for the notification part, that is how blocking works currently.
If someone is harassing you, just block that person, you won't see any content created by that person, while you can maintain communication with the rest
They shouldn't be able to eavesdrop on my conversation, nor take part in it.
I should be able to speak to Everybody But Tom if I so wish, and Tom should not be able to butt into the conversation.
They're not eavesdropping, you're shouting in a public space. You don't get to control other people. If you want that type of control then you should be on your own personal page on social media. Because that is not how public forums have ever worked, nor is it how they're supposed to work.
This isn't a public square. This is a private website. This is not how we decide where our taxes go, nor is it backed by any government.
If you were in public and a person started following you around as you had a conversation (even if that conversation was with everyone in the world except the bad actor) you could walk away and take the conversation with you.
If the harasser kept following you, you could firmly ask them to leave you alone, then start creeping your hand toward whatever weapon you keep on your person.
According to you, a person should not be able to post their Eid spread without every reply in the thread getting @ed Islamophobic venom?
A person cannot ask for latke recipes without everyone who has one being @ed antisemitism?
A woman cannot post a thread about a great picnic she just had with her wife without everyone replying "Nice cheese spread!" being bombarded with @s calling the women in the OP men?
Do you see how your—in my view, flawed—position sures up dominate power structures and discourages identities which are marginalized (and tend to be the victims of harassment) from speaking?
This isn't a public square. This is a private website. This is not how we decide where our taxes go, nor is it backed by any government.
It's a private website, but it is a public space. Restaurants are privately owned, but legally are considered public spaces. It's the same with social media
So if you were having dinner in a restaurant with your special someone [just pretend you have one if you have to] and I simply don't like you (and not because you were a nazi or a politician trying to strip me of healthcare—both categories of people should be ran out of public at every chance—I just didn't like you) you would have no problem with me sitting down at your table and butting in to your conversation to say you were wrong about the truffle butter?
If you were having dinner and said how much you liked your steak well-done—in public mind you—you wouldn't mind if I kept telling everyone around you that you're a piece of shit who ruins cuts of meat?
Is not a matter if I have a problem or not. You can make a scene in public all you want, the place staff will ask you to leave if you do not behave accordingly to social norms
So you want to rely on the staff to maintain your peace?
You wouldn't want to have me fuck off at the press of a button?
Sounds like your way is what I described with extra steps.
So you want to rely on the staff to maintain your peace?
Yeah, is their responsibility
You wouldn't want to have me fuck off at the press of a button?
That's what the block button does. We already told you multiple times blocking is working as intended. You simply are behaving like a Karen
Block button closes your eyes. I'd still be there not fucking off.
Interesting the person advocating for keeping arguments going is calling the person who wants to be able to end them a karen.
load more comments
(14 replies)
I think you're well-meaning but not understanding the topic. This is a public square, regardless of its private ownership. And you can stop hearing any of their harassment by hitting the block button, which is exactly it's purpose. And if anyone is being abusive there's a report button so the mods of the forum can ban them.
I also think we're the only people still seeing this conversation now, and I think neither of us is gonna convince the other of anything. So I'll just say i wish good things for you and maybe or paths will cross again some day. =)
I think you are misunderstanding what "public square" means, as well I question how familiar you are with the harassment marginalized identities tend to face, nor what improves the lived experiences of said people.
Website that allow actual blocking have always made for better user experience in my ...experience
I do not wish specific good things for you, past the peace and prosperity I desire for all intelligent life.
The "Good day." I am about the deliver does not contradict my above statement against wishing you specific good; it's part and parcel the P&P mentioned just below there that everybody gets (as well an acknowledgement our conversation is over).
Good day.
Ok
Great.
So you want to forbid people to speak to other people because you say so? That's really selfish, to say the least
If you want to maintain private conversations, use private messages. The rest is public
Yes, I want to forbid people to speak to me or take part in my conversations because I say so.
I, selfishly, do not wish to be harassed or have my conversations derailed by bad actors.
If people are free to make their own threads and own claims, why do they need "the right" to butt into and derail mine?
If you want to maintain private conversations, use private messages. The rest is public
It doesn't have to be. There is no reason I should not be able to speak to "everyone accept for people I designate" (Tom).
Yes, I want to forbid people to speak to me
Well, block that people. Currently blocking is working as intended (except for the already mentioned notifications that is either a bug or an overlook). You block them and they can speak to you. The End
If they can still see what I post, then blocking is not working as optimally as it could.
(And since their replies—that they should not be able to make—still show up in my notifications, then it isn't even working the way you say it does.)
If they can still see what I post, then blocking is not working as optimally as it could.
Blocking ends the harassement. Is working as optimally as it can. If you are screaming in a public space (because that's what a forum is, every body can enter and take a look) people around you will hear you, like it or not.
If you do not like how forums work, don't use forums. Is the best advice I can give you
still show up in my notifications,
Yeah already said that in the previous comment
(except for the already mentioned notifications that is either a bug or an overlook).
If you do not like how forums work, don't use forums. Is the best advice I can give you
That is shitty advice. Better advice would be, "Post in the magazine specifically dedicated to suggesting improvements to UE and suggest a better way the site could work."
If they can still reply to your posts/comments then no it's not how blocking currently works. You can't "walk away".
Being unable to see your posts and comments wouldn't do much as the user could just sign out of their account or use a private window and be able to see it again. Comments sections like this are publicly visible and indexable.
While I would love for the block feature to work how you describe, it only really works when creating an account takes effort and the comments aren't publically accessible. Blocked people not being able to reply to you would be a good start though.
Being unable to see your posts and comments wouldn't do much as the user could just sign out of their account or use a private window and be able to see it again.
That's the level of protection I am advocating for. I know people can views links in a new private account. They can't reply that way.
They can make a separate account but I can block that one too if it acts up.
I'm suggesting a tiny speed bump to keep interactions good faith. Yes, dedicated trolls can do all sorts of things. I am advocating making it slightly inconvenient for less dedicated trolls to pester people.
Ah yeah, that is true.
If you block someone on reddit, they can see your posts but they cannot reply to them. This is the expected behavior on a platform like this.
Not true. You could respond to someone on reddit and they could not respond back. People abused this to get the last word in arguments
You mean people who were blocked could still reply and they abused that attribute of the block system?
Or do you mean people could say, "Go fuck yourself." block and the blocked person couldn't reply?
...because I'll be honest that second one sounds exactly like what I want to be able to do.
I'm not sure which they are saying but the second one is how reddit worked. You can not reply to people who have blocked you but you can see their comments.
You can't even reply to someone else's reply to someone who has blocked you.
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is a problem on Mastodon also: https://www.jwz.org/blog/2023/08/mastodons-mastodonts/
Perhaps it's an ActivityPub thing although I see no reason why clients can't improve on it.
I'm guessing that when you're losing an argument, you like to post a response and then block the other person so you get the last word, then convince yourself that the other person was a "sealion" or something. Reddit's block system is primarily used that way. If you don't like how blocking works here, I recommend Reddit.
I personally came here to get away from Reddit's "features" like private downvotes and silencing people who disagree with you, because they promote exactly the kind of toxic discussion I want to avoid.
If you're being harassed, report it.
No, I just like to be able to end conversations when a person engages in bad faith for over 10 hours.
load more comments
(8 replies)
Blocking can't possibly stop them from seeing your posts... they may not even be on the same instance as you, so rules on your instance don't do anything to them. And if it did, all they'd have to do is log into another free account.
Blocking is an "I am ignoring you" feature not, not an "I'm hiding from you" feature.
That said, I wish the Notifications tab even worked... I just get Error 50x every time I try to open it, which sucks because the counter is showing a notification and I can't find the message it's on to clear the counter.
Blocking is an "I am ignoring you" feature not, not an "I'm hiding from you" feature.
Sounds like you are describing an "ignore" feature, not a blocking one. I have used sites where blocking works exactly as I described.
I have also... but those sites weren't federated were they?
The fediverse is not "a site"... it's a network of many independent sites. You can do whatever you want on your instance, but you don't get to control all the other instances.
If you demand the ability to mute other people and prevent them from communicating with each other, you are fundamentally in the wrong place. If you choose to make a public statement, the public gets to respond to it. Your choice is whether or not you want to read their response.
I just don't want people I block to see my posts or threads when they are logged in to the account I blocked.
That should not be hard to implement, federated or not.
How?
You can't send an email to another server and then command that server not to deliver it to the recipient. You can follow it up to request that with a recall, sure... but there aren't many that will actually comply. It's the choice of the server operator.
With federated public posts, there is currently no mechanism to say "show this message to everyone except Larry". And there shouldn't be, because it would dramatically increase processing requirements across every instance and also be pointlessly trivial for Larry to work around it.
You aren't in control of the internet... just your own little part of it. If you can't handle that, again, you're in the wrong place. There are plenty of top-down-controlled individual sites that already do that. The fediverse never will.
You can choose to not see what you don't want to see, but you don't get to tell other people not to read your public comments or to not speak. You have your rights, and they have theirs.
It should be trivial to set a "blocked=true" marker and not show those posts.
If nothing else, it should possible to set a blocked tag not federate replies from blocked users to users that block them if an asshole set up their own server with blackjack and hookers.
I am aware how easy it is to open links in private tabs.
Have only been advocating making it that much more difficult to harass people.
I want a speed bump, not a bunker.
A way to get rid of people who care enough to be assholes but not enough to sign out of their accounts.
I'm sorry, but you don't know nearly as much as you think you do. This isn't like Reddit. What you are asking for is not technologically simple, it would be trivial to circumvent, and perhaps most importantly, it's philosophically incompatible with the very concept of public speech.
If you are incapable of or unwilling to accept that, there's no point in continuing to attempt to explain this to you. It's all been addressed, repeatedly.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›