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.
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
323 points (97.6% liked)
memes
10547 readers
2742 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
Oh, I was just making an observation, I'm definitely with you on this, a proper block would be much better,.
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...
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).
But instead if blocking means they cant see your posts, can't you talk behind their backs without them ever even knowing about you?
I mean... Oh no, someone is being mean "behind my back"?
As for the personal info stuff... Why would they know personal stuff about you in the first place? Don't let people you know know your username on these kinds of websites and don't share personal info you don't want people to know about without a throwaway account?
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.
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.
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.
Mastodon manages to do it on ActivityPub
Then use mastodon. You can post on lemmy community just fine.
Yep. Dumb AF here, too.
Doesn't really make sense to block them from viewing your content though, if it's all public.
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.
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.
Reddit says unavailable when you get blocked
Just delete your account already and move on. Nothing of value is produced there anymore.
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.
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?
Maybe if you left they wouldn’t have a fanbase keeping them ties down to that shit service.
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.
"That's how I found my wife!" said divorced man with a restraining order.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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
If you're still using that service you're part of the problem.
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.
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.
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.
Just like Lemmy.
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