Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Well said.
I think Lemmy's devs seem to not understand this problem otherwise they would've kept a version of two way blocking in Lemmy and wouldn't fight this idea so much:
Proper blocking systems for preventing harassment need to at a basic level stop people from replying to the user or their content. People can argue that this can be abused but not having it will be abused more in exactly the same way you said.
I think that it would be possible to implement true/two-way blocking while minimising the amount of abuse, if the blocklist is public. As in, if Alice simply mutes Bob, nobody knows it; but if Alice blocks Bob, you can see in Alice's profile "blocking: Bob".
I also think that the mute / block user option needs to have a confirmation window. From this thread it's obvious that a lot of people are muting bad faith users, instead of reporting them. That's bad because the problems never reach the ears of those who can act on them.
(I'm just throwing ideas around, mind you. Take them with a grain of salt, there might be some catch that I didn't realise.)
Yeah I do think there needs to be confirmation since it is way too easy to just quickly mute a lot of people in rapid succession.
I'm not sure if making them public is a great idea, since people might be bad faith trolls but that might not be apparent to other people at first glance. I probably would have at least 50 on my list if it were a feature, to someone who doesn't know it might seem like I'm abusing the system but almost all of those people were either harassing me or others. Many have been banned but not all of them. Maybe it could be visible to admins, but not general users.
I'm not even really sure how big of an issue blocking abuse really is in reality, since on Reddit many of the people who complain about it are trolls in and of themselves, some of the people complaining about the changes to the blocking system are actually suspended currently. So not really sure it is a real problem. Abuse of the muting feature though is a much more serious problem because if all or most people just do this all the time instead of reporting eventually instances and communities become overrun with trolls and bad faith actors because people are not reporting them, meaning the only ones who would get actioned are the ones caught explicitly by the mods and admins. Not good.
I think that making blocks visible only for admins could work. At least the admins of the instances of both users.
I'd say it's concerning, specially due to hit-and-run tactics - replying to someone and blocking them before they have the chance to counter-reply. I used this a fair bit for shitposting and taunting circlejerks*, but it could be easily used also to make the other side look like lacking arguments (i.e. for public manipulation of views) or also for individual harassment.
One of the counter-strategies that I've seen was people editing their comments and highlighting that they were blocked. That only works when the person knows that they were blocked.
*my last years in Reddit weren't exactly "contributing" with that place.
I think this type of two way blocking makes it particularly clear when the person is blocked since it disallows replying and on Lemmy community bans are visible. So editing comments can help with that, as it would be apparent they have blocked you, the UI could be changed to reflect that either by highlighting the user who has blocked you or greying out the reply button. Of course that could be used as an abuse tactic but since it depends on existing replies which are finite it wouldn't be as bad as them being able to continue making more.
Also since administration on Lemmy is much more in touch with the userbase (at least most of the time) it's easier to get such abuse dealt with at the community or instance level.