Lemmy

12557 readers

5 users here now

Everything about Lemmy; bugs, gripes, praises, and advocacy.

For discussion about the lemmy.ml instance, go to !meta@lemmy.ml.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

nutomic@lemmy.ml

Blocking a user behaves more like mute. Proper blocking needed to prevent harassment. (self.lemmy)

submitted 8 months ago by FarraigePlaisteach to c/lemmy@lemmy.ml

43 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The block feature should be renamed to “mute”, which is what it seems to actually be. Currently I can apply this to a user and they can still see all my posts. So it’s a good mute feature but a terrible block feature.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] adam@doomscroll.n8e.dev 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

ActivityPub implementations generally don't allow this.

This comment will, when I click 'Reply', be sent to your instance (dormi.zone), that instance should then run it's filter/block checks on it and if it's happy it will forward it onto the lemmy.ml instance for further disemination amongst the subscribers of the group.

If you were to have blocked me then my reply will appear on my instance only (which is admitedly tiny - at 1 user) and go no further. This kind of falls apart if I were to be on a bigger instance as more people would see the reply.

That said, Lemmy may not be doing that quite right as the whole Groups/Communities thing is sort of an extension of the main protocol. I hope it's doing it the right way.

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately Lemmy isn't like that and does not follow activitypub spec in that regard, in their current form the block doesn't seem to do that at all and simply hides the blocked user from the blocking user as if the blocked user didn't exist. There are no checks on interactions.

Also if you're wondering how it works with Mastodon, Lemmy basically ignores Mastodon's blocking system and freely allows interraction with Mastodon accounts in the thread even if they blocked the user replying, and also the community actor.

[–] adam@doomscroll.n8e.dev 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Ah, well that is indeed unfortunate and realistically also a bit shit.

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 months ago

Maybe one of the forks or backend replacements could implement an option using it to make it compliant. I wouldn't go with the OP's solution since privacy is non-existent on Lemmy, but just blocking interaction seems like it would be enough to make it compliant, and prevent the harassment issues mentioned, I made an issue which addresses this in the Lemmy Github, it proposes a new feature rather than changing the existing blocks because it's good to have mutes and blocks at the same time.

[–] Blaze@dormi.zone 2 points 8 months ago

That's what I thought too, but then I had a look at Sharkey (and I guess Mastodon does the same), and it is possible to have private profile, that needs to accept requests before people are able to follow them.

https://nerdschalk.com/make-mastodon-account-private/

So I guess it's still possible even with ActivityPub?