It always makes me sad when another fedi user - and, in my experience, it is always a woman - says that they feel unsafe posting here, because of replies they get.
-
Wo ist das Problem, dann muss man halt seinen Beitrag mit der Einstellung "Only Follower" veröffentlichen!
Ist halt schade um die Möglichkeit seine Gedanken in größerer Runde auszutauschen und auf neue interessante Menschen zu treffen!
Vielleicht hilft dann auch der Umzug auf eine andere, kleinere (?) Instanz.
Oft lohnt sich auch die Kommunikation auf die Metaebene zu heben, konnte so schon manches Missverständnis klären!I suspect that the online translation I used is poor, as it makes it sound like you are trivialising the impact of these replies on women, and suggesting that the onus is on them (moving instance, or engaging differently) to solve the problem.
-
@tknarr It's all good
@neil I'm still looking at what's involved in creating subscribeable blocklists. The basic hook into the block functionality on the server is obvious enough, but the list itself involves learning everything about the ActivityPub protocol and the federation and syndication models. Making it useful involves having categorization and user ratings while preventing abuse of them too. Straightforward in concept, terminally hirsute in implementation.
-
Welcome!
The term "fediverse" is just slang for the network(s) of federated services/servers, of which your server (wehavecookies.social) is one.
A "fedi" user, here, is someone who uses one or more fediverse services.
@neil oh I understand now, thanks for taking the time to explain it to me :))
-
@neil that would be perfect. An “only allow replies from people you follow” option would help so much.
@alex @neil Yes and no. If someone has fears, then yes. But the way I find new people to follow is when they interact with my posts. Having an option like that turned on would prevent me from doing that.
So I guess my answer really is YES, as long as it's an OPTION.
I have no qualms about blocking assholes, and I really don't care what they say behind my back. Unlike them, I have a life and it isn't centered on social media.
️ -
It always makes me sad when another fedi user - and, in my experience, it is always a woman - says that they feel unsafe posting here, because of replies they get.
Control over who can reply to a toot would be amazing, as a way to improve this without them needing to mute or block post-harm.
@neil
I've already been called the N word and I've only been here a week or so. It's surprising how nasty people get when online.
-
@alex @neil Yes and no. If someone has fears, then yes. But the way I find new people to follow is when they interact with my posts. Having an option like that turned on would prevent me from doing that.
So I guess my answer really is YES, as long as it's an OPTION.
I have no qualms about blocking assholes, and I really don't care what they say behind my back. Unlike them, I have a life and it isn't centered on social media.
️ -
@neil
I've already been called the N word and I've only been here a week or so. It's surprising how nasty people get when online.@Shewolfnm I'm so sorry - that is just awful
-
@evdelen As you say, that is post visibility, not reply control.
-
@neil I'm still looking at what's involved in creating subscribeable blocklists. The basic hook into the block functionality on the server is obvious enough, but the list itself involves learning everything about the ActivityPub protocol and the federation and syndication models. Making it useful involves having categorization and user ratings while preventing abuse of them too. Straightforward in concept, terminally hirsute in implementation.
-
-
@HunterZ @neil Subscribeable blocklists are a technical issue, and I can state a number of good use cases for them.
Abuse of a blocklist by it's creator (misleading subscribers about criteria, doing a bait-and-switch after getting a subscriber base) is completely separate, and yes _that's_ a social issue. Hence my concern for categorization and ratings, and ways to prevent those from being abused to give a list a false reputation.
-
@HunterZ @neil Subscribeable blocklists are a technical issue, and I can state a number of good use cases for them.
Abuse of a blocklist by it's creator (misleading subscribers about criteria, doing a bait-and-switch after getting a subscriber base) is completely separate, and yes _that's_ a social issue. Hence my concern for categorization and ratings, and ways to prevent those from being abused to give a list a false reputation.
-
@HunterZ @neil Subscribeable blocklists are a technical issue, and I can state a number of good use cases for them.
Abuse of a blocklist by it's creator (misleading subscribers about criteria, doing a bait-and-switch after getting a subscriber base) is completely separate, and yes _that's_ a social issue. Hence my concern for categorization and ratings, and ways to prevent those from being abused to give a list a false reputation.
-
@HunterZ @neil Did I say anything about it being at the instance level? No, I did not.
The use cases all involve decisions by individual users about which blocklists to subscribe to. It certainly _could_ be used by an instance admin, but we already give them that power by allowing instance-level blocking in the first place. The social issue there isn't subscribeable blocklilsts, it's having an instance admin you can't trust not to block people inappropriately by whatever mechanism.
-
It always makes me sad when another fedi user - and, in my experience, it is always a woman - says that they feel unsafe posting here, because of replies they get.
Control over who can reply to a toot would be amazing, as a way to improve this without them needing to mute or block post-harm.
@neil remember when Mastodon asked for changes to be made to the interaction policies FEP specifically so they can opt out of implementing reply and boost control?
i remember. -
@neil I'm still looking at what's involved in creating subscribeable blocklists. The basic hook into the block functionality on the server is obvious enough, but the list itself involves learning everything about the ActivityPub protocol and the federation and syndication models. Making it useful involves having categorization and user ratings while preventing abuse of them too. Straightforward in concept, terminally hirsute in implementation.
-
@neil Can you in RL control who`s replying to words you said?
@electricfusionQ @neil this is real life too, mon.
-
It always makes me sad when another fedi user - and, in my experience, it is always a woman - says that they feel unsafe posting here, because of replies they get.
Control over who can reply to a toot would be amazing, as a way to improve this without them needing to mute or block post-harm.
-
It always makes me sad when another fedi user - and, in my experience, it is always a woman - says that they feel unsafe posting here, because of replies they get.
Control over who can reply to a toot would be amazing, as a way to improve this without them needing to mute or block post-harm.
@neil ultimately, fedi's culture of men constantly centering themselves, reply-guying, being weird and condescending and creepy to women and fems, and so forth, is a social-cultural problem. and while better tools can help to shield us from the worst of it, you can't solve a social problem with technical solutions. in other words, it's the culture of misogyny that needs to change, or nothing will fundamentally change.
-
It always makes me sad when another fedi user - and, in my experience, it is always a woman - says that they feel unsafe posting here, because of replies they get.
Control over who can reply to a toot would be amazing, as a way to improve this without them needing to mute or block post-harm.
@neil Women. Black people. Jews...
