• gedaliyah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    When I’ve brought this up with the devs, they have shot it down immediately. Basically, their attitude is that posts are public by default. So hiding them from a blocked user doesn’t really do anything.

    Of course, that’s nonsense. Mastodon does it. It has an incredible chilling effect on harassment.

    • far_university190@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      It really not. What if just do not want to see their post, for example because low quality or topic i not like? Block is a post/comment filter for feed, nothing more.

      Maybe named wrong if you expect it to be more than it is. But functionality very useful.

      Maybe should be able to block post/comment seperate, sound like good idea.

      • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        I would argue that there should be a block feature and also a mute feature. What we currently call “block” is actually just a mute.

        • far_university190@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Mute really is better name.

          But block would mean activate a feed filter for someone else. Could abuse remote filter activate some way, probably.

          It probably also filter on instance side, so if instance of blocked person ignore request to activate block filter, block is useless. And block actually not do anything might confuse people or accuse dev of malice.