The “Readers added context” feature is the only good thing about Twitter.
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
750 points (97.5% liked)
Murdered by Words
1540 readers
1 users here now
Responses that completely destroy the original argument in a way that leaves little to no room for reply - a targeted, well-placed response to another person, organization, or group of people.
The following things are not grounds for murder:
- Personal appearance ("You're fat", "You're ugly")
- Posts with little-to-no context
- Posts based on a grammar/spelling error
- Dick jokes, "Yo mama", "No, you" type responses and other low effort insults
- "Your values are bad" without any logcal or factual ways of showing that they are wrong ("I believe in capitalism" - "Well, then you must be evil" or "Fuck you you ignorant asshole")
Rules:
- Be civil and remember the human. No name calling or insults. Swearing in general is fine, but not to insult someone else.
- Discussion is encouraged but arguments are not. Don’t be aggressive and don’t argue for arguments sake.
- No bigotry of any kind.
- Censor the person info of anyone not in the public eye.
- If you break the rules you’ll get one warning before you’re banned.
- Enjoy the community in the light hearted way it’s intended.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As far as I’m aware “mute” means the other person can still see your profile and comments and they can still reply to those comments - they just won’t show on your feed or in your messages. This is absolutely useless if you’ve been threatened or stalked by someone.
“Block” means the other person can’t see your profile or any of your comments and you can’t see theirs. Lemmy has “block” for users and “ban” for admins and moderators. I wasn’t aware that Lemmy has “mute” but I’m not an expert.
Block on Lemmy doesn't 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 doesn't stop them from seeing your posts. It just means you don't collect theirs.
Are you sure? I haven’t blocked anyone on this account because the admins told me if I do I can’t see that person’s 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 shouldn’t be able to do that within the community they moderate because that completely defeats the object.
You're kind of proving my point. If you block me, it just means you can't see me.
Edit: the "problem" 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. It's how publishing works in ActivityPub. There's 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 it's kind of just blindly shooting it out into the world. Defederating means you explicitly don't read certain RSS feeds but you can't stop them from reading yours. You could networkly block someone, but that's on a different layer of communication beyond the web application's capabilities.
I wasn’t arguing against your point, I just asked if you were sure because I didn’t have any experience of it. If you shut down genuine discussions and questions with “you’re proving my point” you prevent people from growing and learning. But whatever, have a nice day.
~~Dude, we've had discussions before and I'm 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 that's exactly what I said would happen.
Its becoming pretty fucking clear from my interactions with you that you don't 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 I'm describing.
I genuinely don’t know what you’re talking about, but I do know you’re becoming aggressive and not only is that completely unwarranted, it’s against the rules of this community. I think it’s best we don’t 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 "wait... was it that mod?" I won't name them fully but their name also started with "someone".
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 don't understand how that would prove anything against my point.
Apology accepted.
I will admit, it'd 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.
Ironic
I confused them with another mod named "someone" 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 don't know how else to phrase "that would prove my point." It wasn't being flippant. It was being literal.
The issue isn't about proving your point, it's that OP didn't 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 "victim" end. They weren't arguing with you about anything!
The issue shouldn't be about someone getting to tell someone else what to do. It should be about the topic at hand.
But they didn't tell you what to do! They literally asked you.
Well sorry, but tough shit! This is an open forum where anybody can talk.
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 don't think I should have to prove the way the published documentation says activitypub works. This is objective fact of how it works. There's 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 doesn't publish that and I totally understand why. It's like how Lemmy doesn't show aggregated voting, only the voting of that instance. It's 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. It's simply not effective. And it'd have to be repeated so new instances also will get it. So you're 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 can't work.
That doesn't change anything. They're saying they were told if they block someone, XYZ would happen. And XYZ is what I described. What would changing the direction do? It's like just asking to be on the other side of the exact behavior that I'm describing. It doesn't offer new information.
Because they want to see if that is what actually happens. Come on man.
Literally look it up. It's published documentation. Go ahead and block me. I'll never know. I'm tired of trying to prove a documented fact.
You haven't done anything to prove anything lol all you've done is refuse to test it, get confused, and double reply to people trying to argue.
I don't need to prove anything. It's just a matter of fact. And I even offered to help you see how it works and you instead decided to double down on believing I wouldn't do so.
I need you to take a step back from the this post now. You’re continuing to be argumentative after a previous warning and it’s making this thread unpleasant. As you apologised and explained your first rule violation was a case of mistaken identity, I’m only going to ban you for a day and give you one more warning: Please read the rules in the side bar and lemmys code of conduct before participating here again. You will be permanently banned if you break the rules again. Thank you.