Is Blocking Ever Going To Block?
FfaerieOxide@kbin.social to /kbin meta@kbin.social – 0 points – Currently users you block can still see your posts, reply to those posts, and trigger notifications when they do reply.
You can read the beginning of messages people you have blocked in your notifications tab, but have to unblock users to see the rest of what everyone else reading the replies to your post can see.
A "blocking" feature that is only inconvenient to the blocker is worse than no blocking feature at all, equivalent to trying to escape a fistfight by turning invisible but actually just closing your eyes.
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.
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.
No, it actually hasn't.
Y'all just seem to think people have "a right" to harass others.
I skimmed the other threads and it has all been thoroughly covered.
You just seem to think you have "a right" to control others.
Nobody that you've blocked can harass you in a way that your demand to mute their account would prevent, Karen. Watch me prove it right now.
Oh, ya skimmed huh?
Doesn't make you any less wrong.
There is no reason why the feature I have laid out couldn't be implemented, and I believe I have laid out plenty of justification of why it should.
Again, the person who wants to allow further harassment calling the person who wants to provide a means to stop it "a karen". You are a silly person.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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?
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).
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.)
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
Yeah already said that in the previous comment
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?
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.
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'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.
You don't need to block someone to end a conversation. Just say "you're acting in bad faith, and I'm done here", then stop replying to them. They'll most likely reply to you once or twice, and that'll be it. And if you use kbin's block function, you'll never even know.
If you're engaging with someone who is acting in bad faith for that long, you're most likely trying to convince the audience that the other person is wrong. If the fact that they're arguing in bad faith 10 hours in isn't abundantly clear to any person with half a brain reading your thread, then maybe they're not acting in bad faith and they just disagree with you on something you feel strongly about.
Also, you kind of said the quiet part loud there. "Engaging in bad faith" isn't, in and of itself, the same as harassment. I'm sure that there are individual communities on kbin where critics of particular ideas and ideologies are silenced, and if that's what you need in order for your ideas to stand, then I'd suggest staying in those communities. The general consensus here seems to be that if you're out arguing in public and someone isn't actually harassing you (even if they disagree with you in a way that you believe constitutes "bad faith"), then they should be allowed to speak. Reddit's toxic climate has just been exacerbated by their bad block feature, because now the motivation when you get into an argument is to be the first to block so that you're guaranteed to have the last word. It doesn't lead to useful discourse.
Bare minimum, if you want block to function this way, then you should have to delete any un-replied-to comments of yours in order to be able to do it so as to remove the perverse incentive to abuse the feature to "win" arguments. I'm sure you'd find that agreeable?