Blocking someone should remove their replies from your posts, this is the type of safety features we need in the Fediverse!
-
@foxyoreos @Schafstelze @dansup through the context of the server you're replying FROM though, not the original server the first post came from. Once the messages federate the chain exists on other servers, not just your own, people can still see replies other than yours even if they were to block your entire server.
@raptor85 @Schafstelze @dansup so how do quote posts get around that, because those links also get federated?
Like, I am genuinely not understanding what you mean by this.
Also, quote *permissions* federate. You can see my reply on a server that has federated from another server.. and on average, non-participating platforms aside, you will need to get my permission to quote, and I can revoke that permission and turn off quote posts, and it will federate properly.
-
@raptor85 @Schafstelze @dansup so how do quote posts get around that, because those links also get federated?
Like, I am genuinely not understanding what you mean by this.
Also, quote *permissions* federate. You can see my reply on a server that has federated from another server.. and on average, non-participating platforms aside, you will need to get my permission to quote, and I can revoke that permission and turn off quote posts, and it will federate properly.
@raptor85 @Schafstelze @dansup federation does not destroy the original link or prevent cooperating platforms from making requests to other servers to fetch permissions. Every single post will have a "copy original link" button, that link exists, every server federating knows how to send a request to the original server.
That's how FetchAllReplies works.
-
Blocking someone should remove their replies from your posts, this is the type of safety features we need in the Fediverse!
@dansup hear hear. and from seeing quote posts featuring them; same goes for filtered stuff.
-
@raptor85 @Schafstelze @dansup federation does not destroy the original link or prevent cooperating platforms from making requests to other servers to fetch permissions. Every single post will have a "copy original link" button, that link exists, every server federating knows how to send a request to the original server.
That's how FetchAllReplies works.
@raptor85 @Schafstelze @dansup At the *very* very least, it is no technical problem for fetchAllReplies to not return replies that I've removed. My server already knows my blocklist, I'm not sharing any new information with it if it decides to filter out those replies.
And even *just* that behavior would make this better. At the very least if someone goes to the server I live on in a web browser and opens up my thread.. that can filter replies, I could have a "remove reply button" for that.
-
@raptor85 @Schafstelze @dansup At the *very* very least, it is no technical problem for fetchAllReplies to not return replies that I've removed. My server already knows my blocklist, I'm not sharing any new information with it if it decides to filter out those replies.
And even *just* that behavior would make this better. At the very least if someone goes to the server I live on in a web browser and opens up my thread.. that can filter replies, I could have a "remove reply button" for that.
@raptor85 @Schafstelze @dansup that is not something that would be technically impossible to do - it wouldn't be perfect, but it would help.
-
@gbargoud @alterelefant @dansup
If you are a bad actor you can just install a "shadow" account on a different instance with a similar instance name.
Then you can just post text "in the name of" the user who has blocked you.
There are always thins you can do as a bad actor in a system without central coordination ("decentral").
I don't understand which proposal could add an extra layer of "defence" here?
@dnkrupinski
There is no defense possible against instances that consistently show bad behavior. To defederate an instance is the ultimate measure.
@gbargoud @dansup -
-
@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 -
