Blocking someone should remove their replies from your posts, this is the type of safety features we need in the Fediverse!
-
@kelson
I don't know what you, and those instances, think are bad actors, but I suspect that might include people that .social, being relatively liberal, deliberately doesn't disallow. Concerning the objectively bad actors, they might just tend to go to .social due to the absence of reason to go elsewhere. You can't blame the .social moderators for that. (2/2)
@rimu @dansup -
@dansup Should be optional?
I blocked so many people on Twitter and Facebook, but their older quote are valid and merely giving context.
Blocking people sometimes means "there's no wrong with them, I simply not interested in their post and don't want them to see me anymore."
-
@kelson
> harassment, scams, or other abusive replies
Those should be removed by server moderators. If the origin server doesn't take it down, other servers can decide to defederate it. If your own server neither defederates not deletes the reported replies, you should look for another server imho.
@rimu @dansupGood idea.
> Let's imagine I post a bunch of antivax nonsense (or fascism, etc) and then block everyone who debunks me. Their replies are deleted, only leaving those that agree with me.
Why wouldn't that also work for this scenario?
-
I'm supposed to simultaneously believe that server-level moderation is enough to remove abusive replies or misinformation coming from other instances.. but not enough to remove misinformation if it's not in a reply?
If somebody posts misinformation and disables replies, then report it, the same way you would with any other post. Easy.
-
Blocking someone should remove their replies from your posts, this is the type of safety features we need in the Fediverse!
This is a very hard problem. And the risk of getting it wrong and having a lot of disinformation as a result is very big. This needs most cooperating software implementations to coordinate on blocking semanticis, like with GTS reply control.
In my opinion this is one of the hardest problems of fedi.
Imagine half of the responses you block still show in half of the instances that can see your post via federation. Some will see those blocked replies, some will not, and the more your post federates, the more inconsistent this will be. You have to account for this if you truly want to build this feature right.
-
@kelson
I don't know what you, and those instances, think are bad actors, but I suspect that might include people that .social, being relatively liberal, deliberately doesn't disallow. Concerning the objectively bad actors, they might just tend to go to .social due to the absence of reason to go elsewhere. You can't blame the .social moderators for that. (2/2)
@rimu @dansup -
Blocking someone should remove their replies from your posts, this is the type of safety features we need in the Fediverse!
There is at least one GitHub request for this.
Eg https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/15631 -
@alterelefant @dansup No, this is no expected, a block has always only prevented you from reading what people write on all platforms, only bans remove their posts (or direct moderator action to remove posts).
A user should not be able to do such destructive actions to the global conversation on platforms run by other people, only on platforms were thet have such permissions (and with that some legal association with the platform operator) themselves.
@the_moep
I think you are ignoring the sense of space Mastodon gives for replies. It gives a sense that they are a part of a discussion within a digital space defined by the original post. The original poster should have some say over their sense of safety in the digital space of their own posts, and replies by blocked individuals should be disassociated from the post and not part of that digital space anymore. That's not destructive. It's not taking over another account or instance, it's taking control over your own account and the digital space Mastodon creates around it. -
- I don't expect to be able to force-delete an abusive reply to one of my posts across the entire fediverse.
- I don't even expect to be able to prevent it from pointing back to my post.
- But I also don't expect to be obligated to continue pointing forward to it from mine.
-
@the_moep
I think you are ignoring the sense of space Mastodon gives for replies. It gives a sense that they are a part of a discussion within a digital space defined by the original post. The original poster should have some say over their sense of safety in the digital space of their own posts, and replies by blocked individuals should be disassociated from the post and not part of that digital space anymore. That's not destructive. It's not taking over another account or instance, it's taking control over your own account and the digital space Mastodon creates around it. -
I'm supposed to simultaneously believe that server-level moderation is enough to remove abusive replies or misinformation coming from other instances.. but not enough to remove misinformation if it's not in a reply?
If somebody posts misinformation and disables replies, then report it, the same way you would with any other post. Easy.
@foxyoreos
> but not enough to remove misinformation if it's not in a reply
Objective reality is hard. There are always going to be people that can't be convinced with reason. In fact, I think that's the case for everyone, to some extent. Humans aren't rational. They reject arguments completely if they don't fit in their existing view of the world.
@kelson @rimu @dansup -
@foxyoreos
> but not enough to remove misinformation if it's not in a reply
Objective reality is hard. There are always going to be people that can't be convinced with reason. In fact, I think that's the case for everyone, to some extent. Humans aren't rational. They reject arguments completely if they don't fit in their existing view of the world.
@kelson @rimu @dansup -
-
@alterelefant @FWAaron @dansup
Imo that's basically the same though? If you remove the context of the reply then it's basically just a worthless post?Or would the idea be to not show the reply under a pest but still show what post a reply was on when viewing the reply? (similar to quote tweets) Because that feels like it could be a valid compromise (which would still allow for censorship but not fully break the conversation) although that would go against the (imo scuffed) permission approach quote tweets went.
(Also it still doesn't feel right to me to be able to just fully ban any opinion you don't like under jour posts for everyone in the whole Fediverse. E.g. when Hetzner tried to silence ciritique of transphobia under their posts it was still visible on other instances, with the proposet blocking approach this would've basically be invisible so this still feels like an action the moderators of each instance should take, not individual users for everyone)
-
-
@the_moep
I think you are ignoring the sense of space Mastodon gives for replies. It gives a sense that they are a part of a discussion within a digital space defined by the original post. The original poster should have some say over their sense of safety in the digital space of their own posts, and replies by blocked individuals should be disassociated from the post and not part of that digital space anymore. That's not destructive. It's not taking over another account or instance, it's taking control over your own account and the digital space Mastodon creates around it.@FWAaron @alterelefant @dansup
I don't agree with the "sense of space" for replies when it comes to moderation actions tbh. For me that's something which is up to moderators of your instance (and the instances you federate with), if those do not act in your best interest then you should find the ones that do...Also you already have something to say about your personal safety: You can mute/block people if you don't want to see them/give them the opportunity to easily link to your content, but if you don't want them to interact/see your content at all then the only solution is unfortunately to not post it publically at all. (Which is what people are already doing, both in posts and replies as well as instance-local timelines)
This is because any public post can be abused by malicious actors (either by linking to it or screenshotting it), this proposed addition to the block feature is not going to stop such abuse nor is it going to significantly slow it down.
-
-
@kelson
I disagree. Any given position in a comment tree currently is a perspective of the same tree (only posts that are neither a reply nor are a parent (both recursive) aren't displayed). If comments are hidden depending on the position, that would not just make for different perspectives of the same tree, but for different parallel ones.
@rimu @dansup -
@kelson
I disagree. Any given position in a comment tree currently is a perspective of the same tree (only posts that are neither a reply nor are a parent (both recursive) aren't displayed). If comments are hidden depending on the position, that would not just make for different perspectives of the same tree, but for different parallel ones.
@rimu @dansup -
@foxyoreos @Schafstelze @dansup the only way to federate it to other servers would be via publicly posting the ban, even if your full list isn't visible any server you've federated to would effectively have it, so it would be easy to scrape. I fully disagree, you don't own the fediverse, you don't own the thread you only started it, you can split and block further replies but you cannot kill a conversation down the chain from the one you started, it doesn't even need to necessarily involve you.
@raptor85 @foxyoreos @Schafstelze @dansup You don't have to be able to kill the whole conversation further down, but you should at least be able to stop your post from pointing to the next one down the line.
