Question I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on possibly making votes public. This has been discussed in a lot of other issues, but here's a dedicated one for discussion. Positives Could help figh...
Probably better to post in the github issue rather than replying here.
Yeah, that was what I thought to. It’s just mute. Which is nice for the quiet, but I’d be great if the block would make them unable to downvote you and your posts as well. And it’d be nice if it wouldn’t even let them reply to your posts. Because muting doesn’t stop the poison the spread, just my personal ability to not see it.
I’d be great if the block would make them unable to downvote you and your posts as well. And it’d be nice if it wouldn’t even let them reply to your posts.
I’m not entirely sure that’s going to work out the way people think it will.
Suppose I’m some jackass that gets off on harassing you: if blocks prevented me from interacting with your content, and you blocked me, I would have confirmation that I’ve successfully gotten under your skin. I can then just make another account and continue what I’m doing.
If blocks don’t notify or provide indication to the blocked party, they would either escalate their behavior (while you are blissfully unaware) and get banned by a moderator, or give up and move on to someone else.
There’s also considering how that’s going to work with moderators and admins: do they get to bypass the block and continue to comment and interact with you against your wishes? Does it hide your posts from them if they’re blocked? It’s a lot harder to design this type of blocking on a community-centric platform than it is to do for a microblogging platform like Twitter or Tumblr.
Because muting doesn’t stop the poison the spread, just my personal ability to not see it.
That’s what mods and admins are supposed to do. It’s not the users’ responsibility to moderate the behavior of others, and it’s a lot less stressful than trying to stop toxicity when you only have words in your moderator toolbox.
I’m not sure which two trolls decided to downvote your comment saying “fair points,” but here’s an upvote for being a good sport about listening to me explain why your preferred implementation of blocking might not be more effective than what we have now.
Ahh, thanks. Truth be told, comments like yours (as in well thought out and logical) are why I love Lemmy so much.
I have a little downvote team following me around. Many in this thread have denied my theory about that, but meh, I can see when they’re at work. So don’t think that it had anything to do with your post, it was just my name that makes them rage out a lil bit.
To your points tho, I do think they are great, and I def wasn’t seeing that side of things until I read your post. So great work!
If there was a team of downvoters following him around, then the number of downvotes he receives would be more consistent across his content, with older things having more and newer things having fewer.
Instead what we see is wildly varying downvote totals, seeming to depend on the specific thing he says. People disagreeing with his statements would not fuel his victimhood mentality though.
Personally I do check his account once a day to keep tabs on him. I don’t generally downvote though, I prefer to fact check his statements.
Yeah, that was what I thought to. It’s just mute. Which is nice for the quiet, but I’d be great if the block would make them unable to downvote you and your posts as well. And it’d be nice if it wouldn’t even let them reply to your posts. Because muting doesn’t stop the poison the spread, just my personal ability to not see it.
I’m not entirely sure that’s going to work out the way people think it will.
Suppose I’m some jackass that gets off on harassing you: if blocks prevented me from interacting with your content, and you blocked me, I would have confirmation that I’ve successfully gotten under your skin. I can then just make another account and continue what I’m doing.
If blocks don’t notify or provide indication to the blocked party, they would either escalate their behavior (while you are blissfully unaware) and get banned by a moderator, or give up and move on to someone else.
There’s also considering how that’s going to work with moderators and admins: do they get to bypass the block and continue to comment and interact with you against your wishes? Does it hide your posts from them if they’re blocked? It’s a lot harder to design this type of blocking on a community-centric platform than it is to do for a microblogging platform like Twitter or Tumblr.
That’s what mods and admins are supposed to do. It’s not the users’ responsibility to moderate the behavior of others, and it’s a lot less stressful than trying to stop toxicity when you only have words in your moderator toolbox.
Fair points!
I’m not sure which two trolls decided to downvote your comment saying “fair points,” but here’s an upvote for being a good sport about listening to me explain why your preferred implementation of blocking might not be more effective than what we have now.
Ahh, thanks. Truth be told, comments like yours (as in well thought out and logical) are why I love Lemmy so much.
I have a little downvote team following me around. Many in this thread have denied my theory about that, but meh, I can see when they’re at work. So don’t think that it had anything to do with your post, it was just my name that makes them rage out a lil bit.
To your points tho, I do think they are great, and I def wasn’t seeing that side of things until I read your post. So great work!
If there was a team of downvoters following him around, then the number of downvotes he receives would be more consistent across his content, with older things having more and newer things having fewer.
Instead what we see is wildly varying downvote totals, seeming to depend on the specific thing he says. People disagreeing with his statements would not fuel his victimhood mentality though.
Personally I do check his account once a day to keep tabs on him. I don’t generally downvote though, I prefer to fact check his statements.