this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
778 points (97.6% liked)
Murdered by Words
1579 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
I really don’t think stalking victims would agree it’s good “block” has gone. I understand how it was being abused - it’s frustrating and annoying but not being able to completely block someone on social media is more than that, it can be real-world dangerous. Think domestic violence, custody disputes, abusive parents etc. Social media can be invaluable for at-risk people, but not if they can’t block the people putting them at risk.
Stalking victims blocking someone doesn’t make them not able to view their posts though, since they can just log out and view them or create a new free account and see them. They need to set their posts to private and not accept follow requests from people that they haven’t verified are who they say they are, that’s the only way.
If someone's stalking users they need to be banned by the mods.
Creating a feature that allows anyone to censor anyone else in a conversation ends up ruining the entire conversation.
Again, lemmy doesn't have this. Are you just as mad at the people developing and operating lemmy servers for this?
I’m not mad and I’m confused why you think I am?
Personally, I consider lemmy and Reddit to be different from Facebook, Twitter and other social media. You generally don’t know any redditors/lemmings irl and in an anonymous forum it’s much easier to stay truly anonymous. On Facebook and I think soon on Twitter, you’re meant to use your real name and in some cases show government ID.
So no, I’m not mad at Lemmy developers, I’m not mad at anyone at the moment. But as someone who was stalked (thankfully before social media existed) I am concerned for other victims, particularly as Twitter doesn’t have moderators anymore. Even if they reinstated them, moderators can slow to act on such a large platform and they only enforce the rules of the platform - someone just reading your posts isn’t breaking any rules, yet they could be using that information to cause you a real-world harm. That’s why I think the block feature needs to exist, but it just my opinion. We can have different opinions without arguing.
Twitter doesn’t require real names or any sort of verification btw. Completely anonymous unless you intentionally want to show your real details.
Thanks. I think this is what I might have been thinking of. But yeah, it’s not necessary.
Yeah I thought that might have been what you were thinking of. I would think that will play part in some further "verified" tick system for the twitter blue subscribers if they ever bring it in.
TBH I wish that on all social media like Twitter/Facebook you were required to prove your identity and have your real name. It would (hopefully) make people a bit more responsible in their actions and stop a lot of the terrible things people write and do.
If your Twitter is publicly viewable then blocks do nothing to protect you, because someone could still see your profile by making a new account.
If you just don't want to see harassing posts, mute works for that.
The only people that need a block feature are those trying to censor others
[deleted my comment. Not appropriate]
Neither of our instances let you block users like Twitter used to. Are you going to complain to your admin?
If you think it's dangerous when Elon does it, but perfectly fine when your admin does it, then it doesn't sound like it the actual feature that matters.
What are you talking about? Why would I complain to an admin? Dangerous when Elon does what?
You're a nutcase.
Arguing is against the rules of this community. I’m going to nuke this whole thread because it’s becoming nasty and that’s not welcome here either. Please read the rules and make sure you don’t break them again or you will be banned. Thank you.
"Arguing" means letting people know how block actually works on Twitter? The post is misleading, and people should know what block actually means in the context of Twitter.
Are you going to tell this to the people calling me an idiot over and over? That's actually hostile, very different than just contributing to the conversation letting people know what the feature actually does.
If you want to ban me, fine, but I'm calmly informing people. It's the reaction I've got, from being mass downvoted for giving context, and repeatedly getting name-called that should be seen as the problem.
I warned the person who called you names and deleted their posts. What other people do or say isn’t an excuse for you to break the rules, it’s each individual’s responsibility to follow the rules of the community, the instance, and lemmy.
I consider debate/discussions to be civil; people with different opinions participating in respectful conversations. It becomes an argument as soon as someone becomes aggressive, nasty, insulting or just plain unpleasant. That includes arguing for arguments sake and provoking arguments. According to lemmys code of conduct, users should report argumentative comments, then ignore them.
I gave you a soft warning for being argumentative with me with your “are you going to get mad at” comment you made to me personally earlier. This is your final warning; if you break the rules again you will be permanently banned from this community.
It is a serious question, if it's bad that Twitter does it, is it also bad that lemmy work this way?
If you have a double standard and want to ban people that point it out, go ahead. Consistency is important.
I can see why you are upset Twitter is removing blocks, because censoring people that point out your own hypocrisy is how you deal with problems.
Once again, I genuinely don’t know what you’re talking about now. I explained in another thread why I personally think lemmy/Reddit is different from other social media, but we’re not talking about that now, I’m talking to you as a moderator for breaking the rules in your replies to someone else. That’s why I distinguished these comments as “from the moderator”.
I’m not upset with Twitter, I don’t use it to tweet myself. I’m not being a hypocrite and I’m not banning anyone because they disagree with me. I’m banning you because you’ve broken the rules repeatedly, and continue to do so after I gave you three warnings. Your behaviour is not appropriate or welcome in this community.
You must think I'm someone else.
Name calling is against the rules of this community and lemmy. I’m going to delete your comments that break the rules. Please don’t break the rules again of you will be banned. Thank you.
That's completely fair, I don't blame you. Sorry about that.
No problem, we all get carried away at times. I just really don’t want this to become Reddit so I try and implement the rules quite strictly. Thank you for sticking up for me in the thread above, I was beginning to question my sanity!
Thank you, I did enjoy the first reply I made to you.
Did you know they put wheat in generic fruit roll ups? I always wondered why they do that.
Being gluten free is a bigger hassle than it seems. You'd think you're giving up bread, and switching to a new pasta type, but it so much more.
A lot of premade sauces have wheat too.
I think it gives the roll-ups their stretchyness.