If I block a user, shouldn’t their votes not apply?
I’m guessing the answer is “it’s too hard to make that work” but I figured I’d ask.
As I understand it, blocking someone means you don’t want to read what they say but doesn’t prevent them from interacting with you. It’s just that you won’t see it (easily). Instead of blocking it should be called ignoring. It’s a tool against annoyances, not against stalkers.
If it worked in a way they cannot interact with you, it could be abused, e.g. by mass-blocking a whatever-leaning instance users to prevent them from downvoting; or by blocking someone to prevent them from proving me wrong.
Instead of blocking it should be called ignoring. It’s a tool against annoyances, not against stalkers.
Ok…but it kind of seems like it SHOULD work that way. I feel like protecting users from stalkers is a high priority than any negative effects one might get from exploiting a political bias via upvotes/downvotes on a platform that downplays the importance of upvotes and downvotes.
I think stalking should merit direct involvement of the admins, because it’s more serious and also because needs more nuance than what a button has.
“Blocking” on Lemmy is actually “muting”, but the devs want to keep it labeled as “block”.
I would assume (I don’t know so don’t take this as fact) that blocks are one way. Your client is blocking read access of that users content. It can’t stop them from seeing what you post/comment.
Maybe someone more educated on the subject will clarify if that is correct
IMO it’s a failing of what the function is supposed to do. Or at least what I think most of us want it to do.
I like its current functionality. I disagreed with reddit getting rid of this behavior and moving to a system that lets people lock others out of a conversation.
