Since each instance is its own ‘website’ that shares content with each other, your block would need to be publicly available so that every other site can see it and implement it.
That’s mostly true; it’s optimized for wide dissemination of information, and the idea of keeping a specific person from seeing information that’s shown to the rest of the world isn’t very compatible with that. It doesn’t really work on Reddit or web forums that are visible without logging in either since a person you’ve blocked can still view your posts anonymously.
A bit more looking brings me to the ActivityPub spec. Your server should tell the blocked user’s server about the block, and the blocked user’s server shouldn’t allow them to interact with your posts or comments (that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be able to see your posts or comments).
The thing is, in network protocol documents, should means the behavior is optional. Fediverse software doesn’t have to support blocks at all according to the protocol.
Imagine a hypothetical situation where I have beef with you. I create a second account and block you. I use this account to scout your posts, then using that other account, I go to all of the posts you’re commenting on, and post comments calling you out for being… I don’t know, whatever nasty thing I want to call you out for. Because that account has blocked you, you can’t see those posts (and presumably not the replies to them, either), and can’t defend yourself.
The problem you’ve solved is that they’re not harassing you in your spaces, and your communities.
If they wanna cry about me in their basement with their own friends, that’s ok. But I want to put hurdles, at least some inconveniences, between myself and their ability to harass me in my communities. Force them to manage 30 accounts, etc.
It sounds like what you want is for moderators to ban people for you, which they will do if you report them and the moderators agree that what they are doing is unwanted in the community.
They would likely not like or agree with what the moderator decided, as moderators are ether fairly hands off unless needed or hated by the community. They want the ability to police others just due to them conversing with them.
I would like that, except moderators are already overworked without being forced to stay up to date on all the current dogwhistles.
and the lemmy community in general is too small in general to sustain a healthy pool of mods.
how fast can mods realistically respond to reports?
What if I want an alternative where I’m fine with them being in the community as long as they stay away from my content?
what I dont care what the mods say, I dont want them to be able to say things that I find hurtful to my friends in the comments of my posts?
they’re not harassing you in your spaces, and your communities.
They would be, though. That’s exactly what they’re saying could happen - you just wouldn’t be able to see it. In effect, what they described is exactly what you’re claiming to be a problem, except worse because it’s exclusively in control of the harasser.
so then whats the solution here? I’m assuming you want harassment to stop.
so the reddit way is a problem because the victim can’t see it.
so the solution is to provide a way for the victim to not be able to see it, without actually stopping the harassment?
like… i dont get it. how is that an improvement? at least with the reddit way, the victim can put up hurdles to prevent the harasser from coming into their comments and flooding them with foul shit.
To be clear I’m not saying it’s a solution, just that the proposed solution isn’t actually one, either. At the end of the day, it’s not possible to both do what OP is asking for and not also make block lists public, so it’s all academic at this point.
I think that making blocklists public is the lesser evil
what I’m saying mostly is that what OP is asking for isn’t unreasonable. people are giving them shit for it, and thats not fair. there are problems with the current solution.
I know that the reddit-style blocking also has problems. It’d be great if there was a better solution. but simply wanting to prevent a harasser from harassing you in your metaphorical front yard without appealing to the powers that be, or simply shutting your ears and eyes, seems like a pretty reasonable thing to want regardless of technical complication.
at least with the reddit way, the victim can put up hurdles to prevent the harasser from coming into their comments and flooding them with foul shit.
How? One new account that blocks the victim and it’s exactly what you’re arguing against, except now the user doesn’t get the choice to ignore it or fight back. It’s completely invisible to them.
With how it works here, it’s the victim’s choice to endure it or isolate themselves from it. Do you not see how that’s better?
except the victim doesn’t have the choice to endure it or isolate themselves, they only have the choice to blind themselves. The attacker still gets to spread lies and rumours in the victim’s very own comment section - the harassment still continues even if the victim cannot see it.
not every community is that of online strangers, some people actually know eachother IRL, or in some capacity outside of lemmy.
You’re hinging on the wrong part. The only difference between the scenarios laid out is who has the choice. In the one you are arguing for, the choice is in the hands of the harasser.
Since each instance is its own ‘website’ that shares content with each other, your block would need to be publicly available so that every other site can see it and implement it.
Thanks Final conclusion, no offence: Blocking is rather useless in the Fediverse, unless you submit to complete ignorance.
That’s mostly true; it’s optimized for wide dissemination of information, and the idea of keeping a specific person from seeing information that’s shown to the rest of the world isn’t very compatible with that. It doesn’t really work on Reddit or web forums that are visible without logging in either since a person you’ve blocked can still view your posts anonymously.
A bit more looking brings me to the ActivityPub spec. Your server should tell the blocked user’s server about the block, and the blocked user’s server shouldn’t allow them to interact with your posts or comments (that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be able to see your posts or comments).
The thing is, in network protocol documents, should means the behavior is optional. Fediverse software doesn’t have to support blocks at all according to the protocol.
Imagine a hypothetical situation where I have beef with you. I create a second account and block you. I use this account to scout your posts, then using that other account, I go to all of the posts you’re commenting on, and post comments calling you out for being… I don’t know, whatever nasty thing I want to call you out for. Because that account has blocked you, you can’t see those posts (and presumably not the replies to them, either), and can’t defend yourself.
What problem have we solved?
The problem you’ve solved is that they’re not harassing you in your spaces, and your communities.
If they wanna cry about me in their basement with their own friends, that’s ok. But I want to put hurdles, at least some inconveniences, between myself and their ability to harass me in my communities. Force them to manage 30 accounts, etc.
It sounds like what you want is for moderators to ban people for you, which they will do if you report them and the moderators agree that what they are doing is unwanted in the community.
They would likely not like or agree with what the moderator decided, as moderators are ether fairly hands off unless needed or hated by the community. They want the ability to police others just due to them conversing with them.
Then they complain about the moderators, and if enough of the community agrees, things will change.
If the moderators won’t change, the community moves.
If they don’t agree with the community, they should find a different community.
Exactly, its why modlog and communities that exist just to bring up mod issues are a needed part of a healthy fediverce.
The idea that someone should be able to control what another user types without oversite is just megakaren levels of entitlement over others.
Unfortunately pretty much every single mod hides their username on the mod logs, and usually give the most vague ban reasons possible.
god you keep being like “dont put words in the mouths of others” and you cant help doing it yourself, can you?
Oh? does it not sit well with you?
i mean, the hypocrisy certainly doesn’t.
why would it?
I would like that, except moderators are already overworked without being forced to stay up to date on all the current dogwhistles.
and the lemmy community in general is too small in general to sustain a healthy pool of mods.
how fast can mods realistically respond to reports?
What if I want an alternative where I’m fine with them being in the community as long as they stay away from my content?
what I dont care what the mods say, I dont want them to be able to say things that I find hurtful to my friends in the comments of my posts?
They would be, though. That’s exactly what they’re saying could happen - you just wouldn’t be able to see it. In effect, what they described is exactly what you’re claiming to be a problem, except worse because it’s exclusively in control of the harasser.
so then whats the solution here? I’m assuming you want harassment to stop.
so the reddit way is a problem because the victim can’t see it.
so the solution is to provide a way for the victim to not be able to see it, without actually stopping the harassment?
like… i dont get it. how is that an improvement? at least with the reddit way, the victim can put up hurdles to prevent the harasser from coming into their comments and flooding them with foul shit.
To be clear I’m not saying it’s a solution, just that the proposed solution isn’t actually one, either. At the end of the day, it’s not possible to both do what OP is asking for and not also make block lists public, so it’s all academic at this point.
I think that making blocklists public is the lesser evil
what I’m saying mostly is that what OP is asking for isn’t unreasonable. people are giving them shit for it, and thats not fair. there are problems with the current solution.
I know that the reddit-style blocking also has problems. It’d be great if there was a better solution. but simply wanting to prevent a harasser from harassing you in your metaphorical front yard without appealing to the powers that be, or simply shutting your ears and eyes, seems like a pretty reasonable thing to want regardless of technical complication.
How? One new account that blocks the victim and it’s exactly what you’re arguing against, except now the user doesn’t get the choice to ignore it or fight back. It’s completely invisible to them.
With how it works here, it’s the victim’s choice to endure it or isolate themselves from it. Do you not see how that’s better?
except the victim doesn’t have the choice to endure it or isolate themselves, they only have the choice to blind themselves. The attacker still gets to spread lies and rumours in the victim’s very own comment section - the harassment still continues even if the victim cannot see it.
not every community is that of online strangers, some people actually know eachother IRL, or in some capacity outside of lemmy.
You’re hinging on the wrong part. The only difference between the scenarios laid out is who has the choice. In the one you are arguing for, the choice is in the hands of the harasser.
Well multi accounting is the next problem… Just live an unpeacefull live then…
Multi-accounting is a feature, not a problem. Any “solution” I can think of to it would lead to far worse consequences than whatever you’re imagining.