As far as Iâm aware âmuteâ means the other person can still see your profile and comments and they can still reply to those comments - they just wonât show on your feed or in your messages. This is absolutely useless if youâve been threatened or stalked by someone.
âBlockâ means the other person canât see your profile or any of your comments and you canât see theirs. Lemmy has âblockâ for users and âbanâ for admins and moderators. I wasnât aware that Lemmy has âmuteâ but Iâm not an expert.
Are you sure? I havenât blocked anyone on this account because the admins told me if I do I canât see that personâs comments in the communities I moderate⊠which rather interferes with moderating.
Can you block me for a bit so I can try it? Can you even block a moderator? You probably shouldnât be able to do that within the community they moderate because that completely defeats the object.
Youâre kind of proving my point. If you block me, it just means you canât see me.
Edit: the âproblemâ with blocking on the fediverse is that the concept of block needs to be implemented server side, not client side. So every instance would need to implement it meaning everything you post would have to carry the information of who you block. Itâs how publishing works in ActivityPub. Thereâs no way for another instance to know that you blocked XYZ so how would they know not to show you that post? Also in regards to defederating, publishing is basically a fancy RSS feed. Anyone can read it, even just you if you view that port. So itâs kind of just blindly shooting it out into the world. Defederating means you explicitly donât read certain RSS feeds but you canât stop them from reading yours. You could networkly block someone, but thatâs on a different layer of communication beyond the web applicationâs capabilities.
I wasnât arguing against your point, I just asked if you were sure because I didnât have any experience of it. If you shut down genuine discussions and questions with âyouâre proving my pointâ you prevent people from growing and learning. But whatever, have a nice day.
~~Dude, weâve had discussions before and Iâm all for you going somewhere else and suddenly complaining about how you had a bad time with me not providing you a genuine discussion, but when your whole comment reiterates my point, what are you expecting to happen? You just described that you were told XYZ happens and thatâs exactly what I said would happen.
Its becoming pretty fucking clear from my interactions with you that you donât understand honest discussions.~~
Edit: I realized a few minutes after posting it was another mod with a similar name. Came back to correct it. I got ahead of myself.
The rest of it still stands though. The behavior you were told would occur is the exact behavior Iâm describing.
I confused them with another mod named âsomeoneâ who had made a prejudiced comment, got banned, and then complained that no one would have an honest discussion instead of banning first. It was relatively recent so it was still in my head, but not recent enough that I remembered the full name correctly.
That being said, being asked to to replicate a behavior that I already predicted literally would prove my point. Like, they were actually asking me to do something that they were told would produce the exact behavior I described. I honestly donât know how else to phrase âthat would prove my point.â It wasnât being flippant. It was being literal.
The issue isnât about proving your point, itâs that OP didnât ask for a debate. You seriously need to consider that not everybody is trying to debate you.
OP was genuinely confused on how blocking worked and wanted you to block them so they could see how it worked on the âvictimâ end. They werenât arguing with you about anything!
I genuinely donât know what youâre talking about, but I do know youâre becoming aggressive and not only is that completely unwarranted, itâs against the rules of this community. I think itâs best we donât interact with each other at all, outside of moderating.
Yeah, I was actually coming back to apologize. It was a different mod with the same first half of your name. After posting, I was âwait⊠was it that mod?â I wonât name them fully but their name also started with âsomeoneâ.
Edit: realized I said I came back to apologize but never finished. So apologies. That was my mistake.
Edit: but the original concept still stands. You said you were told to expect the behavior I described. I donât understand how that would prove anything against my point.
I will admit, itâd be funny if you blocked me. Cause then I could demonstrate how blocking works and that I can still see your comments and reply, etc.
In regards to moderating, I nice set of tools that they could implement is a moderator view of the community that would override any of your block-preferences. So your normal surfing could be edit from blocking, but when you go to mod, you could effectively override them temporarily.
Plus, I already know for a fact it works that way. Because I experienced it. I blocked someone and then later, noticed they replied to me because I had not logged in yet.
Like, I donât think I should have to prove the way the published documentation says activitypub works. This is objective fact of how it works. Thereâs no way for me to know who blocks me unless I admin the server where that person actually is and I modify the code to view it. But the activitypub protocol doesnât publish that and I totally understand why. Itâs like how Lemmy doesnât show aggregated voting, only the voting of that instance. Itâs extra info that needs to be added. Now imagine if every blocking action was also now encoded in an activitypub and every instance that read it had to keep that info. Databases would grow much faster than they do now. Itâs simply not effective. And itâd have to be repeated so new instances also will get it. So youâre basically adding at least a daily or weekly posting, unencrypted of who everyone is blocking. All you gotta do is setup an instance and just ignore that data. But then you could easily target people who target you. Being entirely transparent is part of the reason blocking canât work.
That doesnât change anything. Theyâre saying they were told if they block someone, XYZ would happen. And XYZ is what I described. What would changing the direction do? Itâs like just asking to be on the other side of the exact behavior that Iâm describing. It doesnât offer new information.
As far as Iâm aware âmuteâ means the other person can still see your profile and comments and they can still reply to those comments - they just wonât show on your feed or in your messages. This is absolutely useless if youâve been threatened or stalked by someone.
âBlockâ means the other person canât see your profile or any of your comments and you canât see theirs. Lemmy has âblockâ for users and âbanâ for admins and moderators. I wasnât aware that Lemmy has âmuteâ but Iâm not an expert.
Block on Lemmy doesnât prevent the blocked person from seeing your posts.
Edit: which is the crux of comparing mute on Twitter to block on Lemmy/Kbin/Mastodon etc.
Even defederating doesnât stop them from seeing your posts. It just means you donât collect theirs.
Are you sure? I havenât blocked anyone on this account because the admins told me if I do I canât see that personâs comments in the communities I moderate⊠which rather interferes with moderating.
Can you block me for a bit so I can try it? Can you even block a moderator? You probably shouldnât be able to do that within the community they moderate because that completely defeats the object.
Youâre kind of proving my point. If you block me, it just means you canât see me.
Edit: the âproblemâ with blocking on the fediverse is that the concept of block needs to be implemented server side, not client side. So every instance would need to implement it meaning everything you post would have to carry the information of who you block. Itâs how publishing works in ActivityPub. Thereâs no way for another instance to know that you blocked XYZ so how would they know not to show you that post? Also in regards to defederating, publishing is basically a fancy RSS feed. Anyone can read it, even just you if you view that port. So itâs kind of just blindly shooting it out into the world. Defederating means you explicitly donât read certain RSS feeds but you canât stop them from reading yours. You could networkly block someone, but thatâs on a different layer of communication beyond the web applicationâs capabilities.
I wasnât arguing against your point, I just asked if you were sure because I didnât have any experience of it. If you shut down genuine discussions and questions with âyouâre proving my pointâ you prevent people from growing and learning. But whatever, have a nice day.
~~Dude, weâve had discussions before and Iâm all for you going somewhere else and suddenly complaining about how you had a bad time with me not providing you a genuine discussion, but when your whole comment reiterates my point, what are you expecting to happen? You just described that you were told XYZ happens and thatâs exactly what I said would happen.
Its becoming pretty fucking clear from my interactions with you that you donât understand honest discussions.~~
Edit: I realized a few minutes after posting it was another mod with a similar name. Came back to correct it. I got ahead of myself.
The rest of it still stands though. The behavior you were told would occur is the exact behavior Iâm describing.
Ironic
I confused them with another mod named âsomeoneâ who had made a prejudiced comment, got banned, and then complained that no one would have an honest discussion instead of banning first. It was relatively recent so it was still in my head, but not recent enough that I remembered the full name correctly.
That being said, being asked to to replicate a behavior that I already predicted literally would prove my point. Like, they were actually asking me to do something that they were told would produce the exact behavior I described. I honestly donât know how else to phrase âthat would prove my point.â It wasnât being flippant. It was being literal.
The issue isnât about proving your point, itâs that OP didnât ask for a debate. You seriously need to consider that not everybody is trying to debate you.
OP was genuinely confused on how blocking worked and wanted you to block them so they could see how it worked on the âvictimâ end. They werenât arguing with you about anything!
I genuinely donât know what youâre talking about, but I do know youâre becoming aggressive and not only is that completely unwarranted, itâs against the rules of this community. I think itâs best we donât interact with each other at all, outside of moderating.
Yeah, I was actually coming back to apologize. It was a different mod with the same first half of your name. After posting, I was âwait⊠was it that mod?â I wonât name them fully but their name also started with âsomeoneâ.
Edit: realized I said I came back to apologize but never finished. So apologies. That was my mistake.
Edit: but the original concept still stands. You said you were told to expect the behavior I described. I donât understand how that would prove anything against my point.
Apology accepted.
I will admit, itâd be funny if you blocked me. Cause then I could demonstrate how blocking works and that I can still see your comments and reply, etc.
In regards to moderating, I nice set of tools that they could implement is a moderator view of the community that would override any of your block-preferences. So your normal surfing could be edit from blocking, but when you go to mod, you could effectively override them temporarily.
They wanted you to block them. So they could test if they could still see your comments after that.
Plus, I already know for a fact it works that way. Because I experienced it. I blocked someone and then later, noticed they replied to me because I had not logged in yet.
Like, I donât think I should have to prove the way the published documentation says activitypub works. This is objective fact of how it works. Thereâs no way for me to know who blocks me unless I admin the server where that person actually is and I modify the code to view it. But the activitypub protocol doesnât publish that and I totally understand why. Itâs like how Lemmy doesnât show aggregated voting, only the voting of that instance. Itâs extra info that needs to be added. Now imagine if every blocking action was also now encoded in an activitypub and every instance that read it had to keep that info. Databases would grow much faster than they do now. Itâs simply not effective. And itâd have to be repeated so new instances also will get it. So youâre basically adding at least a daily or weekly posting, unencrypted of who everyone is blocking. All you gotta do is setup an instance and just ignore that data. But then you could easily target people who target you. Being entirely transparent is part of the reason blocking canât work.
That doesnât change anything. Theyâre saying they were told if they block someone, XYZ would happen. And XYZ is what I described. What would changing the direction do? Itâs like just asking to be on the other side of the exact behavior that Iâm describing. It doesnât offer new information.
Because they want to see if that is what actually happens. Come on man.
Literally look it up. Itâs published documentation. Go ahead and block me. Iâll never know. Iâm tired of trying to prove a documented fact.
You havenât done anything to prove anything lol all youâve done is refuse to test it, get confused, and double reply to people trying to argue.
deleted by creator