this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
324 points (97.6% liked)

memes

10117 readers
3412 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 68 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Not defending xitter, but that's exactly how it works on lemmy, isn't it? If I block someone I don't see them anymore but they can still see and reply to me.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

When I've brought this up with the devs, they have shot it down immediately. Basically, their attitude is that posts are public by default. So hiding them from a blocked user doesn't really do anything.

Of course, that's nonsense. Mastodon does it. It has an incredible chilling effect on harassment.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago

Oh, I was just making an observation, I'm definitely with you on this, a proper block would be much better,.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How can you feel harassed if you don't see what a user is replying to you? Unless you pay a lot of attention to usernames...

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Imagine finding out one day that someone you've blocked for harassment has been following you around and making nasty comments on every single post you made for months, or even leaking personal information. You just didn't know it.

It happens, and even on Lemmy you will have people who will do this (doxing will get a ban but other behaviors may slide under the radar, especiallyif the target doesn't see and report it).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

But instead if blocking means they cant see your posts, can't you talk behind their backs without them ever even knowing about you?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It really not. What if just do not want to see their post, for example because low quality or topic i not like? Block is a post/comment filter for feed, nothing more.

Maybe named wrong if you expect it to be more than it is. But functionality very useful.

Maybe should be able to block post/comment seperate, sound like good idea.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I would argue that there should be a block feature and also a mute feature. What we currently call "block" is actually just a mute.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Mute really is better name.

But block would mean activate a feed filter for someone else. Could abuse remote filter activate some way, probably.

It probably also filter on instance side, so if instance of blocked person ignore request to activate block filter, block is useless. And block actually not do anything might confuse people or accuse dev of malice.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Mastodon manages to do it on ActivityPub

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Then use mastodon. You can post on lemmy community just fine.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

Doesn't really make sense to block them from viewing your content though, if it's all public.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Discord is the worst I've seen. I finally found a separate plug in to make posts disappear, which is how it should be. I guess I get keeping posts fully public, but it would be nice if discord prevented the replies or tags to maybe discourage the blocked user from interacting, too. They at least prevent the emoji reactions.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

As far as I've seen, that's how blocking works on literally everything. You are blocking them from your view. You are not blocking their view of you. It wouldn't matter if it worked the other way, since they could just log out and still see everything.

If you want total banishment, run a chat room or a non-public forum that can't even be entered or read without permission.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

Mastodon (theoretically) does it like this. They can no longer see your posts.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Reddit says unavailable when you get blocked

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Just delete your account already and move on. Nothing of value is produced there anymore.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I wish this were true for me, but many of the voice actors and content creators I pay attention to have yet to move elsewhere.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Maybe if you left they wouldn’t have a fanbase keeping them ties down to that shit service.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Unfortunately, nobody's gonna switch just because one person left unless it's a big influencer (which I am not). It'd take multiple people collectively leaving, and that's not gonna happen without something big. Fortunately, Twitter's current owner is, well... he'll likely cause that "something big" all on his own. Like how Reddit's API thing caused Lemmy to grow in size overnight.

When it does happen, I've already got accounts setup on a couple different places from the last time I thought the Great Twitter Exodus was finally happening.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

I think there is a term for this. The (insert name here) effect. You won't leave because they're there. They won't leave because their audience is there.

You have less incentive to stay, really. What are you afraid of missing out on?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago

"That's how I found my wife!" said divorced man with a restraining order.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (3 children)

When you "block" someone on Reddit, they can see and reply to your posts and comments, they can search your comment history, which could lead to identification and doxxing. It's fucking bullshit. When you block someone they should cease to exist, cease to be able to see, or vote, comment or reply to your content, at all. Mastodon does this perfectly. Lemmy and Mbin do not. It's abusive and it's fucked.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 month ago

Isn’t the problem that posts are public even to users that are not logged in? They probably feel like there’s no point in just forcing stalkers to log off to view them.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But a blocked user would just need to sign out to see all these things anyway. You’re just giving people a false sense of security. Does mastodon prevent non-longed in users from seeing your posts?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

But they can't comment on them. To do that, they'd have to create a new account. And, if they did that, you'd see it and be able to report them (if it's a reportable offense, and, in most cases, it is) or block them (or both).

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

this is how blocking should work. if you are publishing something to the public, there is no reason to expect others can't see it comment on it

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

There are pros to this:

If the person you blocked can't see your posts, they can intuit that you've blocked them. Then, they might try and find you on other social media to harass you even further, or shift targets to someone else.

If they can see your posts, they have no idea they've been blocked, similar to Reddit's shadow bans. This might make them think you're just annoyed or rarely look at your DMs, making them invest even more time to uselessly try to contact you.

Of course, I can see the other side too, that you don't want them to know about any (new) posts you've made; but it isn't as one-sided as you seem to think it is.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

I disagree. When they don't see your posts, you might as well have gone silent or just post less frequently so they happen to not see them. Besides: once you follow a certain number of people, you don't track each and everyone of them.

Seeing a post makes you more likely to want to answer them. If that doesn't work (as I understand it), you will notice it and maybe be frustrated about it.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 month ago

Then have two options: block and mute. With mute, users won't know you've muted them, as you've described. With mute, the user would not be able to see your posts.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago

If you're still using that service you're part of the problem.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago

Just like Lemmy.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I think this should be default behavior. Countless times, blocking is used to silence disagreement rather than actual harassment. It's used offensively as well: By blocking your political opponents, they can't tell your followers that they're in an echo chamber