Nah, in a public discussion, you/authorship isn’t the primary concern, the text & interest of the public is primary.
Whether you want to see that text is your liberty.
The liberty of the public, however, is to likewise decide for themselves whether to read the text no matter who authors it regardless of petty disagreements between authors.
Your disagreements aren’t ours.
Just like in offline public discussions, no one should decide whether the public gets to see a marvelous takedown of text you happened to write just because you disagree with the author of that spectacular takedown.
I disagree that all content on lemmy should be treated as strictly public. I think that there are (or should be) nuance to that.
I realize that federation creates technical challenges to meet that strictly, but a best effort is better than no effort.
for example, I think its reasonable to have communities that are invite-only. AFAIK thats not currently possible in lemmy, but giving a best-effort to make that happen would be better than nothing. Instances known to ignore it could be defederated, clients known to ignore it could be blocked. swiss cheese defense.
I disagree that all content on lemmy should be treated as strictly public.
Acknowledging your disagreement, it’s observable fact that it is.
It’s readable to the public & open to public input.
That input may be more concerned with responding to ideas (eg, as a criticism or corroboration) and presenting that to the public reader than for communicating specifically to the author of the text that inspired it.
I certainly read primarily for content & ideas and respond accordingly like I’m trying to show the public something.
Anyone can respond.
Comments I release to the public I treat as the public’s & not really mine.
If that’s not for you, then I don’t think you’re identifying a technical limitation but a disagreement with design goals: the design of lemmy makes much sense for public discussion.
With private, direct messages, you may have a better argument.
so just a point here - the OP never actually said that the blockee shouldn’t be able to see what the blocker posted, they weren’t actually complaining about visibility of their own content.
they were complaining that when they blocked someone, the blockee could continue the harassing behaviour and the blocker would just be ignorant of the slander being said of them. if the blockee escalated to doxxing or something, they wouldn’t even know, and the blockee could do it and would be unlikely to be reported since reporting on behalf of someone (i expect) is much less common unless the offense is both egregious and trivially verifiable.
They were complaining the blockee could write any public response even an impersonal one.
Doxxing & other issues likely already violate rules & I don’t see how that would happen, since we don’t reveal much about ourselves.
I don’t see how defamation would happen without a real identity.
Harassment likely wouldn’t fit the legal definition: at most, some call being incredibly annoying harassment.
I’ve seen threatening replies I didn’t report (because I consider online threats vacant hyperbole) result in bans.
A restraining order is something a judge grants. That’d be a moderator or administrator in the context of the Threadiverse, and they do have the ability to prevent people from posting. Bringing something to their attention is what the “report” link is for, it’s their decision after that.
I remain firm in my opinion that giving everybody the ability to unilaterally apply restraining orders to everybody they want to for whatever reason they want to leads to bad outcomes. That’s how Reddit does it and it’s pretty badly broken over there.
This is a public forum. If you post to a public forum, you should expect your posts to be public. If you’re posting something you don’t want to be public, all I can say to you is that this isn’t the right platform for that.
Engaging with me is more than my ability to respond.
Them replying to my content is still engaging with me, no matter if I can see it. Them telling misinformation to other people in my thread is still engaging with me.
and guess what: the developers of lemmy can change it if they want to.
but meanwhile here you are, insulting people for having differing opinions, and discussing why they have those reasons. huh, funny.
Where did this come from? lol What a bizarre thing to say over this.m, especially when you’re the one crying over people saying mean things behind your back lol.
and guess what: the developers of lemmy can change it if they want to.
No shit sherlock.
but meanwhile here you are, insulting people for having differing opinions
It… Makes perfect sense?
YOU blocked them. They didn’t block you.
It’s like when you were a kid and told to ignore the kid bullying you; except that it actually works.
If I block them, I want to stop them from engaging with me.
I don’t want to let them continue to engage with me and other people in my comments, but just lose my ability to see what they’re saying about me.
That’s like saying the purpose of a locked door isn’t to keep people out, it’s to prevent you from seeing what they’re doing in your house
Nah, in a public discussion, you/authorship isn’t the primary concern, the text & interest of the public is primary. Whether you want to see that text is your liberty. The liberty of the public, however, is to likewise decide for themselves whether to read the text no matter who authors it regardless of petty disagreements between authors. Your disagreements aren’t ours.
Just like in offline public discussions, no one should decide whether the public gets to see a marvelous takedown of text you happened to write just because you disagree with the author of that spectacular takedown.
I disagree that all content on lemmy should be treated as strictly public. I think that there are (or should be) nuance to that.
I realize that federation creates technical challenges to meet that strictly, but a best effort is better than no effort.
for example, I think its reasonable to have communities that are invite-only. AFAIK thats not currently possible in lemmy, but giving a best-effort to make that happen would be better than nothing. Instances known to ignore it could be defederated, clients known to ignore it could be blocked. swiss cheese defense.
Acknowledging your disagreement, it’s observable fact that it is. It’s readable to the public & open to public input. That input may be more concerned with responding to ideas (eg, as a criticism or corroboration) and presenting that to the public reader than for communicating specifically to the author of the text that inspired it. I certainly read primarily for content & ideas and respond accordingly like I’m trying to show the public something. Anyone can respond.
Comments I release to the public I treat as the public’s & not really mine. If that’s not for you, then I don’t think you’re identifying a technical limitation but a disagreement with design goals: the design of lemmy makes much sense for public discussion.
With private, direct messages, you may have a better argument.
so just a point here - the OP never actually said that the blockee shouldn’t be able to see what the blocker posted, they weren’t actually complaining about visibility of their own content.
they were complaining that when they blocked someone, the blockee could continue the harassing behaviour and the blocker would just be ignorant of the slander being said of them. if the blockee escalated to doxxing or something, they wouldn’t even know, and the blockee could do it and would be unlikely to be reported since reporting on behalf of someone (i expect) is much less common unless the offense is both egregious and trivially verifiable.
They were complaining the blockee could write any public response even an impersonal one.
Doxxing & other issues likely already violate rules & I don’t see how that would happen, since we don’t reveal much about ourselves. I don’t see how defamation would happen without a real identity. Harassment likely wouldn’t fit the legal definition: at most, some call being incredibly annoying harassment.
I’ve seen threatening replies I didn’t report (because I consider online threats vacant hyperbole) result in bans.
The engagement between the two of you is over. He’s saying stuff to other people now, not to you.
You want to control what they see and do? No, you don’t get to decide that for other people.
If you don’t want to lose your ability to see what they’re saying then don’t block them.
That’s not how harassment works.
I think you know that, too.
Consider it a restraining order.
A restraining order is something a judge grants. That’d be a moderator or administrator in the context of the Threadiverse, and they do have the ability to prevent people from posting. Bringing something to their attention is what the “report” link is for, it’s their decision after that.
I remain firm in my opinion that giving everybody the ability to unilaterally apply restraining orders to everybody they want to for whatever reason they want to leads to bad outcomes. That’s how Reddit does it and it’s pretty badly broken over there.
It being broken over there doesn’t make it not broken over here.
Report is good, but why should I have to let other people read my content? Why is this a hill you want to die on?
This is a public forum. If you post to a public forum, you should expect your posts to be public. If you’re posting something you don’t want to be public, all I can say to you is that this isn’t the right platform for that.
thats exactly the take i used to have, until it was explained to me how harmful that is to persecuted minorities and drives them off the platform.
I evidently cannot do a good job of explaining why that would be the case and (apparently) why thats even a problem, but I believe it is.
Well, you haven’t even tried to explain it. You’ve just been saying “but minorities” over and over while refusing to elaborate.
That’s exactly what happens. They can no longer engage with YOU because YOU no longer see THEM.
It’s a curtain, not a door.
Engaging with me is more than my ability to respond.
Them replying to my content is still engaging with me, no matter if I can see it. Them telling misinformation to other people in my thread is still engaging with me.
You are (I know this is a shock) not the centre of the internet. Your inability to police what other people say is not a bug, but a feature.
you are (I know this is a shock) not the center of society. your ability to harass people without repercussion is a bug, not a feature.
This is not harassment. If you feel otherwise please use the tools provided and report.
whats not harassment?
My statements here, but you knew that. Once again if you feel other wise, please use the report feature.
You don’t get to make that decision.
you dont get to make that decision
I didn’t say I do - the software developers of Lemmy did. If you don’t like it go back to Reddit where they do exactly what you are asking for.
I’ve never been on reddit, fucking crazy puritan.
and guess what: the developers of lemmy can change it if they want to.
but meanwhile here you are, insulting people for having differing opinions, and discussing why they have those reasons. huh, funny.
Where did this come from? lol What a bizarre thing to say over this.m, especially when you’re the one crying over people saying mean things behind your back lol.
No shit sherlock.
Where am I doing that?