Today I found out that on this platform, “block” is just a fancy word for “filter”. Just had an individual user go through my entire profile and downvote everything. So I blocked them, thinking that this would make me safe from any future stalking. But I was just informed that no, any user that you ‘block’ is actually still able to see everything that you post and vote freely.
All that ‘blocking’ actually does is hide the person from you. But they’re still free to stalk and do as they please. I just tested this out for myself using my other account and sure enough, it’s true.
I just want to know, how is this acceptable? I bet you that if I called out this user publically, I would probably end up in hot water myself for harassment or something. And yet ‘blocking’ is completely fkn useless too. So what recourse does a user actually have here when faced with a hostile user that wants to ruin their experience on Lemmy?
Coming from Blåhaj, I thought I would try ‘moderating’ my own experience for a bit. But you can’t ‘moderate’ your own experience if the tools to do so are fkn useless and only trick you into thinking that something has been achieved, without actually doing anything useful.
And now I’m starting to see a new value in instances like Blåhaj. Because you actually need admins that give a shit around here or else you’re just left to the wolves on a platform that seems more interested in protecting abusive users than allowing users to protect themselves.
Edit: watching you all upvote the person talking shit about how this works on other platforms while downvoting the actual correct information that comes with a source has certainly taught me a thing or two about this platform and the people on it. You all actually prefer misinformation to fact as long as it suits your vibe or opinion more. Like a bunch of fkn MAGAs. I really wish there was a way to disable notifications for this post (another feature missing here) because watching you people upvote misinformation is enough to make me no longer give a flying fuck what anyone here says or thinks.
That is how blocking works on most platforms.
It’s a different blocking philosophy. Reddit used to work like Lemmy does, for example. The keyword here being “used to”. Here’s their announcement post from when they changed it.
I personally prefer this method of blocking, because you’re not a moderator or administrator and thus should not get to customize the experience of other users than yourself. Yes, there’s the legitimate use case of stopping mass downvoters. But two-way blocking can also be (and has been) used maliciously. You can slander someone and then block them, making them unable to defend themselves or even know what happened, for example.
I mean, okay.
If I already said something publicly, I expect it to be read publicly.
The block tool is because I’m tired of dealing with their bullshit, not because I’m afraid of them reading what I’ve posted.
Still nice to know though, I guess.
You use “stalk” for “see what you publicly publicized”. You block people to not be annoyed, not to be safe. Consider that AN UNLOGGED, ANONYMOUS user can also see your posts. How is blocking supposed to work in this case?
I guess the answer would be that an unlogged user can’t vote.
But the points didn’t matter on Reddit and they’re even less of a consideration on Lemmy.
an unlogged user can’t vote.
But an unlogged user can create a new account, no problem.
I’m not sure how or why it hasn’t been mentioned yet, but one reason blocking is the way it is, is because in a public forum like this, blocking somebody else from seeing your content is extremely open to abuse, while providing no real benefit from a protection perspective. As accounts are essentially free and unlimited, any malicious user can logout or spin up a new account to bypass your block.
On the abuse issue, it was previously shown with some testing on Reddit that by posting something offensive and controversial, then blocking everybody who responded in a negative manner, you could within 3 - 5 rounds of blocking reach the point where you could post practically anything and have it seen like a popular opinion, since everybody who disagreed with you and was willing to call out your bullshit couldn’t see it any more. Hence technical reasons aside, there are very good systemic reasons the blocking mechanism works the way it does.
This made me realize a similar effect works on whole communities. People block a community, that makes the content of said community seem more popular than it is.
Yeah, it’s one of the factors causing echo chambers to form online.
I want to know when and why younger people seem to think that blocking inherently works both ways. It’s almost never worked like that. If you block someone, you are hiding them from your sight; not hiding yourself from theirs. This is the most common way blocking works, with very few sites working the way OP thinks it should.
I’m touched that you think mid-50s is young, but bi-directional blocking is, and should be, the universal norm. Social media blocks are inherently about preventing harassment. If they don’t go both ways then they aren’t blocking anything. Hiding/ignoring content and blocking a user are two completely different concepts.
Lemmy is all public. There’s no private timelines, so any 2way block would be superficial anyway right? A blocked user can just log out, or use a different account on a different instance. It’d give people a false sense of security if anyone said bidirectional blocking was a thing.
Something like Twitter could have bidirectional blocking because you can also make all of your posts private.
Can you give examples of platforms where it works like this? I know that blocking someone on Facebook blocks them from being able to see you. Pretty Twitter is or was the same before Musk. And I just looked it up, blocking a user on Reddit does in fact block them from seeing you. I’m pretty sure it’s always worked this way on smaller platforms I’ve used too.
So I’m curious to know, which platforms have you always used that have apparently always worked this way?
This can’t work on a federated platform. They can always open a tab where they aren’t signed in and see your profile. Or use software that doesnt support that feature.
It works on Facebook because facebook controls every step and can block people from viewing a page.
Why does it matter if a blocked user views your posts? They can’t interact with you from your point of view. Your post describes you going around your own block to view their posts.
Not much of an example these days, but pre-mainstream social media (forums, chat) block was always hide on your end.
To be honest I never blocked back in the old days (the mods would take care of outright spam and users being disruptive).
For me, the new method seems counterproductive. Hiding your post/messages that can still be accessed via another container and/or account just seems strange to me.
So, 20 years ago before Facebook? I know for a fact that blocking has always worked properly on Facebook, I had a very toxic ‘friendship’ there another lifetime ago where we were blocking and unblocking each other every 5 minutes. But it’s funny how everyone here keeps upvoting the incorrect information and ignoring the correct information about this. Not funny haha but funny peculiar. If Facebook only filtered out people instead of blocking them properly, it would be a disaster as far as stalking goes. And I think that everyone knows it because normally people on this platform seem quite rational. Except for when there’s any criticism of the Fediverse, that is.
I agree with you that all mainstream platforms (FB, Twitter, Reddit - this just the ones I have experience with) work like that.
Believe it or not, but there still exist modern forums with large user bases (stable or growing), so it’s not like it’s an archaic model.
It’s fair to criticise Lemmy for using this approach. I genuinely see where you are coming from. But if we approach Lemmy as an evolution of old style forums, then the “hide” approach makes more sense.
With admins, mods (not relevant for default UI?) actively dealing with mass downvotes, stalker-like behaviour and so on.
Part of the adoption of the dual-side block method is because large corps want automation and don’t really care about quality (all about engagement).
With admins, mods (not relevant for default UI?) actively dealing with mass downvotes, stalker-like behaviour and so on.
See that’s my problem here. I just came from a heavily moderated instance because I thought that I could moderate my own experience instead. But it turns out that I have to rely on admins and moderators anyway.
Part of the adoption of the dual-side block method is because large corps want automation and don’t really care about quality (all about engagement).
Yeah I don’t buy this. To me, it makes perfect logical sense that if I block someone, they’re actually blocked and not just hidden from my view. Maybe this wasn’t a problem for forum sites used by a couple of hundred people at most but it’s not 1999 anymore and there’s a lot of psychos out there. It’s nice to know that you can actually protect yourself to some extent on an online platform these days.
Oh you were new to even reddit. The thing you want is something that was only added there a few years ago. Before it worked the exact same way as it does here.
Sorry, we just expect you to be an adult and not care about the numbers. That’s why there isn’t a count on your page. Do you know how often I have people follow me around in my comments to downvote me? A lot. Know what I do? Nothing because I’m over 30.
Ah if only I could be tough and brave and cool like you.
I’m not sure how long you’ve been here - not assuming how long you’ve been lurking, or that this is your first account, but I think it really is easier not to care here. All kidding aside, try it. You don’t have this whole upvote/award dopamine cycle here, and in many cases, anyone can see the number of downvotes a comment has vs upvotes - something that reddit long ago “fuzzed” along with actual vote counts.
For instance, the comment I’m replying to has 3 upvotes (one of them mine), and 1 downvote as of right now. This ratio may stay the same, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you got more downvotes, because your comment was a kind of dismissive reply to a comment that probably represents what a lot of folks who’ve been here a while feel, which also came from a user that is very active and generally well liked. I could not begin to tell you their upvote count (can’t even see my own) as a proof of their popularity, so I just have to go by what I observe in my day to day, and this place is still small enough that you see familiar usernames in a variety of communities.
This is still kind of a small town, and you may come to see this bug as a feature in time. I did.
Exactly. You just have to try harder to be a better person, that’s all
Aside from the rest of the discussion that has already occurred here, I’m not actually sure how this would work from a technical perspective.
You and I are on two completely different instances, if I were to block you, how is your instance supposed to know this in order to stop you from reading my comment?
The only way I could see that working is if the list of users you blocked were federated too, and effectively made public (like votes currently are) - which seems counterproductive to the problem at hand.
Then what happens if you post in a community where someone you’ve blocked is a moderator? Or if you block the admin of another instance? If you can “cloak” yourself from being moderated by just blocking them, that seems like an exploit waiting to happen. As far as I’m aware, on Reddit blocking a user doesn’t hide your comments from them - but they can no longer reply to them, and I assume this is why that is the case. Unless that has very recently changed.
The biggest difference between Lemmy (and all software within the Fediverse - for example, I’m pretty sure Mastodon is this way as well), is that there is not one singular authoritative server. Actions like this need to be handled on all instances, and that’s impossible to guarantee. A bad actor running an instance could just rip out the function that handles this, and then it’s moot. I mean, they wouldn’t even need to do that - they’d have the data anyways.
You could enforce it if both users are on the same instance I suppose, but this just seems like it would only land with the blocking feature being even more inconsistent.
According to another user in here, blocking on Mastodon actually works. So seems like it is possible to do in the Fediverse.
The only way I could see that working is if the list of users you blocked were federated too, and effectively made public
I actually thought blocks were public already. And personally I don’t see how it would be an issue if people that I haven’t blocked can see who I’ve blocked.
As far as I’m aware, on Reddit blocking a user doesn’t hide your comments from them
According to Reddit themselves on their support page: “Redditors you block won’t be able to access your profile or see or reply to your posts or comments”
Then what happens if you post in a community where someone you’ve blocked is a moderator?
Let moderators see comments from users that have blocked them in communities that they moderate but nowhere else. Or do whatever Reddit does in this case.
According to another user in here, blocking on Mastodon actually works. So seems like it is possible to do in the Fediverse.
I was not aware of this, but their implementation of how they do this does bring up the limitation I mentioned. The other user cannot see your posts only if you are on the same server:
If you and the blocked user are on the same server, the blocked user will not be able to view your posts on your profile while logged in.
I actually thought blocks were public already.
They’re not, well - the operator of your instance could go into the database and view it that way in the same way that they can see your email address. But aside from someone who has database access to your instance, blocks are not public. What is public is the list of defederated (“blocked” so to speak) instances for an entire instance (this can be viewed by going to
/instancesof any instance), which might be what you were thinking of?And personally I don’t see how it would be an issue if people that I haven’t blocked can see who I’ve blocked.
How exactly would you enforce that, though? If your blocks were public, all the person who you’ve blocked would need to do is open a private browsing window and look at your profile to see that they’ve been blocked.
If we’re looking at blocks as being a safety feature, I would think that having your blocks broadcasted to every single instance would be classified as harmful and a breach of your privacy. This is why although an instance that you register with has to have your email address that you signed up with, they don’t broadcast it to all other instances (same with the encrypted value of your password) - because otherwise it would effectively be public.
Perhaps I’ve just got the wrong stance, but considering that you can never block someone from viewing your content with an absolute guarantee (if the blocks were broadcasted, you still couldn’t prevent someone from just simply logging out, or standing up their own instance and collecting the data anyways) I would not consider that tradeoff to be worthwhile. Not that my stance has any weight since I’m not a maintainer for Lemmy (or any of the Fediverse software), but I wouldn’t be surprised if that has at least come up to those who are developing the various Fediverse software.
Piefed seems to implement bidirectional blocking
✅ blocking – users, communities, domains, instances. bi-directional.
https://join.piefed.social/roadmap/
@rimu@piefed.social @Snoopy@piefed.social @fxomt@piefed.social
Hi :wave: Indeed it does. I can block whole instances, domains and all that stuff; and they won’t see me at all. If i blocked a user, they will not know i exist. It’s great.
How does that work from a technical perspective? Do non-piefed users still see you?
Not too sure. However i tested it myself; i blocked my main and all new stuff i make on here, doesn’t reach it (mine is @fxomt@lemmy.dbzer0.com)
Not that I doubt you, I just don’t understand how a user bidirectional block works when other instances don’t support the feature.
Same thing happened to me. If I block someone on Mastodon or another Fediverse microblogging instance, they’re blocked. Because that part of the Fediverse was built by people who had been harassed and doxxed off other platforms.
Here? Blocking just means you don’t see the troll, but they can continue to inflict all kinds of havoc on your post scores. Ironically, “karma” isn’t a thing on Lemmy like it is on Reddit, but votes are still used to rank your posts.
I guess there are a hundred great folk on here for every preteen edgelord, but that kind of nonsense really spoils the fun of this platform. Sorry to see you get downvoted for a perfectly reasonable post.
If I block someone on Mastodon or another Fediverse microblogging instance, they’re blocked. Because that part of the Fediverse was built by people who had been harassed and doxxed off other platforms.
Evidently you missed the many (many) discussions that took place maybe 5 years ago by some of those exact builders about how this is, and remains, only a fig leaf which requires every server to cooperate in maintaining the illusion.
I wish I’d saved links based on how often this comes up. There are fundamental issues with how federated systems in general and ActivityPub in particular work, and “real” blocking is one of them. People running other instances can modify the code however they want, and no technical measures have been implemented (because it turns out to be very difficult to do so) to prevent any node operator from removing the fig leaf.
Piefed seems to implement bidirectional blocking
✅ blocking – users, communities, domains, instances. bi-directional.
If I block someone on Mastodon or another Fediverse microblogging instance, they’re blocked
I too enjoy when the proper meanings of words get used and things work as advertised. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills that this is such a controversial topic here. Imagine wanting moderation tools that actually work, the nerve!
There have in fact been huge discussions of this in the past, which maybe you’d already know about if you didn’t come in hot mouthing off about how things need to be changed to fit your preferences immediately, chop chop!
Turns out the type of blocking you want requires a great deal more code than you (clearly) can imagine in order to be actually functional, as opposed to a fig leaf requiring the full cooperation of every server involved.
This was discussed ad nauseam maybe about 5 years ago, with long hellthreads in microblogging fedi, complex deep-dive technical blog posts, the whole nine yards. No I didn’t save links and I wish I had because this and related issues (Mastodon’s fig leaf “privacy” settings, E2EE DMs) keep coming up.
The answer is that what you are asking for can either be implemented as a porous fig leaf which falls apart the very first time some asshole spins up an instance which doesn’t respect it and vacuums up your posts en masse, or it can be implemented using cryptography which requires an enormous amount of work by extremely well-educated CompSci types to implement a standard, and then implement code libraries, and only then can the developers of platforms like Lemmy and Mastodon get started on implementing the actual feature. No one is paying anyone to do this, and it’s not clear that people with the necessary expertise are even available to develop the standard and the code, nor is it clear that everyone would adopt it if they did. So up til now, it hasn’t been done.
Piefed seems to implement bidirectional blocking
✅ blocking – users, communities, domains, instances. bi-directional.
This is an obscure forum with fake internet points 🙄
While that is true. It can still bury or hide valuable discussion. Not that this advocates for bidirectional blocking. But it would be nice if there were some method or mechanism to look for people doing such behaviors and weight their inputs less.
I’ve seen banal and innocuous comments from myself and whole chains including others get down voted for no real apparent reason. Personally I see that and I choose to smile. Knowing that that person is so seething and ineffectual that that is the best they can figure out to do. But not everyone sees it that way. It’s definitely something that will have to be tackled at some point if the system is going to grow. Because whether or not you agree that it’s manageable now. It certainly won’t be if there is a huge growth spurt.
Ah there it is. The “it’S oNlY imAGiNAry iNteRneT pOInts” smart ass comment. I knew it was coming, glad it’s out the way.
