this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023

16 points (100.0% liked)

/kbin meta

16 readers

2 users here now

Magazine dedicated to discussions about the kbin itself. Provide feedback, ask questions, suggest improvements, and engage in conversations related to the platform organization, policies, features, and community dynamics. ---- * Roadmap 2023 * m/kbinDevlog * m/kbinDesign

founded 1 year ago

Blocking and Downvote Stalking (kbin.social)

submitted 11 months ago by wagesj45@kbin.social to c/kbinMeta@kbin.social

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Should blocking a user still allow them to vote on your posts? I'd rather have nothing to do with particular users, and it seems that they continue to show up in the activity for every single post I make around kbin.

top 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] ThatOneKirbyMain2568@kbin.social 14 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Bad idea imo.

Blocking someone means, "I want nothing to do with this person," so it makes sense that you'll be unable to see what they do. This should include direct messages, threads, comments, etc. @PugJesus's idea of a setting to hide votes from blocked users is a great idea, as you should be able to fully ignore someone you've blocked.

It also makes sense that someone you've blocked wouldn't be able to do any 1-on-1 interaction with you. If you've blocked somebody because they're spamming or harassing you, it wouldn't be great for them to be able to DM you.

However, preventing them from voting on your posts is something different entirely, as votes don't just concern the creator of the post and the person doing the voting; they also concern everyone who sees the post. Upvoting a comment is a message not just to the creator but also to everyone else that you like that comment, and the same goes for downvoting. Blocking voting is much more farther reaching than blocking DMs, and with votes being visible on the fediverse, it's a great way for trolls to hide people's views on their posts.

EDIT: Typo

[–] wagesj45@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

But if a troll blocks everyone that down votes them, eventually no one will be left to see their stuff. It is a self solving problem. On the other hand, a troll that you block can interfere with your stuff being shown to others depending on the sorting algorithm.

[–] ThatOneKirbyMain2568@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

But if a troll blocks everyone that down votes them, eventually no one will be left to see their stuff.
By letting people prevent others from downvoting bad content, you make more people see it. This problem is only "self-solving" ifː

everyone who sees heavily downvoted posts blocks the user. This probably isn't ideal behavior given how many people treat downvotes as an "I disagree" button.
if the person's posts aren't being exposed to new people. It doesn't matter if everyone who's already seen the user has blocked them if more people are getting exposed to them. And by preventing downvotes, you're making it more likely that people will see these posts.

On the other hand, a troll that you block can interfere with your stuff being shown to others depending on the sorting algorithm.

The number of trolls going around downvoting everything you do is minimal, and you can often deal with them by calling them out as was discussed in a previous thread about downvotes. Additionally, you have to consider the other side of the coin, which is content that should be getting downvoted getting more attention than they should.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 9 points 11 months ago

A 'hide downvotes from blocked users' might be a good function. Won't solve the problem of reducing visibility of posts, but if you're bugged by it, it would be a help.

[–] Zima@kbin.social 6 points 11 months ago

I would prefer if blocking hides or removes any kind of interaction between us. One issue I have noticed is that when you block someone you can’t see any replies which unfortunately hides comments from others

[–] daredevil@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

I agree with you. Though, I'd also be curious to hear arguments why this shouldn't be implemented.

edit: Thank you for the replies everyone, it's helpful to hear from other peoples' perspectives.

[–] bridge_too_close@kbin.social 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

If you're a bad actor, you could block anyone who downvotes your bad takes or whatever garbage you're posting, and over time, you could block most active users (or at least the ones who disagree with you) until your posts aren't downvoted into oblivion. I suppose by then, your total rep would be pretty pretty low and it would probably be easier to just make a new account.

I'm not sure how viable this would be, just a thought.

[–] wagesj45@kbin.social 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

But if the bad actor blocks everyone, they are putting themselves into a bubble where no one will see their garbage takes.

[–] bridge_too_close@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

Perhaps, or they'll at least remain visible to the casual users and lurkers. They would have the most influence over people who wouldn't actively downvote them, anyways. FWIW, I think there should be some measure taken to mitigate downvote stalking, but there's always one shithead who takes things too seriously and has to ruin things for everyone else.

[–] HarkMahlberg@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

This was a concern raised when Reddit updated the way blocking worked to make posts mutually invisible, between the blocked and the blocker. Some sort of scam had a cadre of dedicated users calling them out everywhere they went on Reddit. When blocking became mutual, i.e. the anti-scammers could no longer see the scammers' posts, it was believed the scammers would have a way easier time finding Marks.

[–] AmidFuror@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

You block someone when you don't want to see their stuff anymore. It shouldn't have any effect on whether they can see or interact with your comments and the rest of the community. If they are block-worthy, other users can block them too.

You shouldn't really care about what they have to say after you've blocked them. If others see you never engaging with them, they should get a clear picture that you don't deem a reply necessary. If you're really concerned with rebutting everything they have to write about you or your ideas, then the correct course of behavior is not to block them.

[–] wagesj45@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Except up and down voting has implications for whether or stuff is visible in certain sorting algorithms.

[–] CoffeeAddict@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Could it be made that a blocked person's votes simply have no effect on the posts of people that blocked them? (ie from the blocked persons end it looks like they downvoted the person but the actually didn't.)

Also, by hiding everything from the blocked person you also run the risk of the blocked person finding out they were blocked, which is not exactly a good thing either; they could have an alt and easily see the person's content and harass them that way.

[–] ContentConsumer9999@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Blocking someone means that you don't want to interact with them anymore and making all of your content invisible to them is a pretty surefire way of doing that.

[–] AmidFuror@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but making them invisible to you accomplishes the same thing and is preferable, IMO. It doesn't change what they can do. Keep in mind blocking, which can be done by any user for any reason at all, is not the same as banning, which is restricted to a smaller set of people with more power.

[–] ContentConsumer9999@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

Yeah, I guess if they're constantly harassing you under your threads/microbologs/comments you can just report them and get them banned.

[–] CoffeeAddict@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago

I can only think of two, and they would be exploiting this system for their own end. (Also, please keep in mind that at the time of writing I am not 100% sure how kbin & the wider fediverse's blocking system works. If I have some incorrect assumptions please correct me.)

They block the person to get the last word in, thereby "winning" the argument. Silly, yes, but people do this.
They create a post/thread and block anyone who comments/disagrees with them. Those people can no longer interact with the post/thread. The only reason this is a problem is because it is a form of self-moderation. (Though, as @wagesj45 pointed out this could be a self-solving problem if they continue to block everyone they disagree with.)

I consider both of these to be pretty rare exploitations of the blocking system, but they happen. I guess it is a question of is this system worth it with these downsides? Some people will go to extreme lengths to harass people, so I don't feel qualified to say either way.

[–] Chozo@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago

I have a similar problem, but with a different user than you. About once a week or so, this user will go through my comment history and just downvote everything. I don't even know what his issue is, because he constantly deletes his own comments and has zero visible comments on his profile anymore, so I have no clue if I've somehow angered him or if he's just a random troll. Unfortunately, blocking him doesn't have any impact on this.

I agree, though. There should definitely be better protections in place against this sort of bad behavior. While I'm not a huge fan of Reddit's implementation of user blocking, it does at least prevent this sort of trolling from occurring. It would be great if there could be a middle-ground between what we currently have and what Reddit has.

[–] ContentConsumer9999@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I feel like blocking someone should just make your content dissappear for them.

[–] density@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Should blocking a user still allow them to vote on your posts?

Yes

Otherwise it would be possible block all users who disagree with you to ensure 100% positive upvotes.

and gollygosh sweetheart why are you even in a situation to be looking at all this? 1x account downvoting you is totaly survivable. feel free to downvote me. :)

[–] wagesj45@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

Why did you choose to be a dick about this?

[–] violetmadder@kolektiva.social 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

@wagesj45

Someone recently announced to me that they despise me so much they're blocking my whole instance. Okay.

But for some reason I still see their posts when people I follow boost them.

[–] wagesj45@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago

Yeah. Blocking is hard for a federated system. And that's before the philosophical differences that have popped up in this thread on how blocks should work in theory.

[–] ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 11 months ago

Honestly, I feel like blocking someone should prevent them from interacting with your posts in any way, or even seeing them. I would think that's the entire point.