Skip to main content


I'm going to talk about sexual harassment online for just a little bit here.

Bear with me.

reshared this

in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

Like many women online, I get sexual harassment in waves here on the good ol' fediverse.

Today was a rough day, other days are less rough, all of it is unwelcome, and that's a bigger problem than one online community. I don't expect Mastodon (or any other ActivityPub thing) to solve that problem 100%.

When I see it, I block it. Often enough it's a bad server, and I defederate.

This impacts the visibility of the comment.

in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

:blobsad:

Why ... just why can't so many people just behave ordinary and decent?

This is just sad. So sad :blobfrown:

in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

So here's what happens practically:

First, I get a disgusting remark (or several) and block/defederate/whatever.

This remark does not pass through to other servers, who often enough *also* are blocking/defederating/whatever.

That means you, dear end-user, don't know that any of this happened.

So when I say something like "harassment is rough today", you're not seeing what I saw.

I personally feel like that's a problem. It gets in the way of understanding the scope of the issue.

in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

I don't need to see you being harassed to believe that you are when you say it.

I understand that there's clearly a bunch of people who fucking do, because some people can only learn from things they experience directly.

Folks, dudes, please believe women.

in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

This is something that Black Mastodon has pointed out repeatedly: harassers can set their reply to “followers only” which means only like-minded abusers and the victim see it. It is probably Mastodon’s greatest weakness.
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't want to host harassment and share it around. I get vile nightmare fuel you don't want to see.

Defederating is a good solution. But I feel strongly that Mastodon (as the putative leader pushing the protocol) could do two things.

One would be to make it easier to share naughty-lists full of bad actors in real time. This would help stop issues before they start.

The other is blocking replies.

in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

as far as I understand it, blocking replies is in the works and should be pushed in the coming months (I may have misunderstood though).
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

I know, I know. "Blocking replies is impossible". "You can't stop people from disagreeing with you on the internet".

I've heard it all, and don't really care.

Here's my proposal: much like how I can set the post visibility here, I should be able to tell my server to drop any replies to that post.

Not "don't send notifications about replies". Drop them. Don't host them.

And compliant servers would honor that request in the UI.

in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

I'm not asking to regulate your speech, dudes.

I'm saying I don't want to host it in certain contexts. And I think it'd be nice if the popular server software enabled that.

This would make the choice of "post or stay quiet" a lot easier here. This might encourage more folks from marginalized communities to come here instead of Bluesky or other platforms.

It might help *grow* this space. And I care about that.

in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

"But how does blocking replies promote speech?"

Good question. Let's imagine selfies.

I don't share a ton of selfies because I get creepy comments.

I would almost certainly post more photos if I could tell my server "drop all replies that aren't from people I follow".

The lack of reply limiting is causing me to self-censor.

in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

"But Veronica, you can mute posts containing certain words!"

True. And I do. But that stops *me* from seeing it. My server still hosts the harassment in that case. It's sending it to other servers.

I don't like that. Ethically that feels very bad. And potentially dangerous.

I want more control over what my server hosts. And the fact that I don't have that control? That's a choice from the folks pushing the protocol.

Fin

in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

Thanks for this explanation! I was wondering, where all of those bad comments where, when scrolling through the comment-section. This really helped me to understand the problem you are facing.
I'm hoping for a good solution to be found. You should not have to deal with harassment.
in reply to hamkaas

@hamkaas I don't see value in private accounts, personally.

If I want to share with friends I have group chats. The entire reason I post on social media is to be social with a broader community.

in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

i wonder... does Mastodon even enable to share blacklist of blocked users? It might be a feature I'd use nearly as often as "follow". Like "hey, i trust this user so i want to ban the same nasty morons as they do". Because.. it's an effort to block someone!
On the Mastodon i did it only once. But on boardgamearena... boah, hundreds of bad players (incl. their behavior).
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

💯. I don't get 1% of the trash you do, and managing who shows up in my posts is something I've wanted for years. I'd say that's the number-one feature request I see discussed on here, honestly.

Vicious abuse is a serious problem, to be sure, and a lot of us are deeply, bone-level tired of other forms of obnoxiousness as well: drive-by snark, tone cops, debate trolls, and other pests.

I can't count how many times I didn't share something bc of what I imagined the replies would sound like.

in reply to Chris Silverman 🌻

@csilverman I would *love* to be able to tell my server "drop and do not share any replies containing the words 'women' and 'kitchen'". It's not just that *I* don't want to see it, it's that I don't want to play a part in other people seeing it.
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

Christ. Yeah, exactly—that's the core counterpoint to the "just mute/block" argument. I don't want some troublemaker's nonsense defacing my work. It isn't just offensive to me, it also drives away other people who I do want to interact with.

I've participated in over two decades' worth of online communities at this point, and the "speech at all costs" principle that seems to define the thinking around these things has *never* resulted in better, more fulfilling interactions. Not even once.

in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

I'm not marginalized in any way that really matters, and it'd even help *me*. I'm forever self-censoring - I'll type out a reply, then think "ahh, this conversation doesn't really need my input" and delete it.

There's really two features that should be part of fedi (think you've asked for both before?): ability to limit replies (signal when a post is not starting a public conversation), and ability to disown replies as canonical.

Let others say what they want instead of trying to guess!

in reply to fraggLe!

@fwaggle yes! This makes sense to me, and feels like it'd *foster* conversation instead of blocking it.

If folks ask me questions here and I reply, often my reply (with a large following) triggers a lot of unwelcome replies for the OP.

I can limit visibility, of course, but then multiple people ask the same question instead of learning from each other.

Being able to tell my server "drop replies that aren't from the OP" would be amazing for encouraging conversation.

in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

I haven't really been paying attention to GoToSocial lately (because I start to think about the colossal task of figuring out how to migrate my domain from one fedi software to another, I keep hoping someone else will do it first and I can copy their homework) but I think they're working on the former at least.

But without support in the wider software it'll just be confusing also.

But even things like we have to tell people "boosts welcome" - why do we live like this? It could be better!

in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

I wonder if a white-list approach could work? As in, you can mark specific users as "allowed to reply", and anyone not marked as such cannot. This way, you could cultivate your own circle of people you trust, so people like you, who get way more abuse than most of us can imagine, could still get some of the benefits of having a social presence and interaction online.

Of course, the downside is that it puts the onus of being safe online on the vicitim. Certainly not a perfect solution.

in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

Haven't tested it and it's not directly related but GoToSocial seems to have managed reply scopes, don't know how that's reflected in apps but yeahg 😀 Mastodon could definitely implement this and get the ball rolling on becoming a spec feature/rule of thumb UX thing. Also showing number of severed connections in a thread would be nice, at least a count of metaphorical Zeus strikes.
in reply to Chris Lowles

@chrislowles yeah, GoToSocial really is the go to option (heh) for someone who wants fine-grained interaction policies *now*.

docs.gotosocial.org/en/stable/…

those who want to stick with mastodon, well, it'll probably be a long wait, so don't hold your breath.

in reply to heteroszuverén vagyok

@Stoori @chrislowles I've had my eye on that one, but my fear is that without it being pushed by the protocol it's not going to be effective.

I think Mastodon has to change their mind about it, and until they do we've got problems.

in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

He should moderate his own speech before he types.

Simply don't be a dick to others.

in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

you are inexplicably generous.

I am definitely asking my fellow dudes to moderate their speech, to treat strangers with decency and respect, to be aware of alternate interpretations of their written words, to remember John Scalzi's wisdom ("the failure mode of clever is asshole").

And to just give a shit about other people, quite frankly.

in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

yep, Bluesky lets you turn off replies for a post at pretty much any point.

They have kinda crap moderation tools, but they do have that.

in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

I would love to get a shared blocklists feature!

Also, people who say they want "free speech" are lying. They already have free speech and can post anything they want online.

What they actually want is "free access to my audience". They want their comment to be read by the thousands of people who follow me, for free.

I should be able to decide who has access to my audience. If they want an audience, they should get their own, by regularly having something worthwhile to say

in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

I think that's a really good idea. And you're not alone, I've heard other people talking about a need for such a feature.
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

post and drop is a double edged feature. I can see it being useful to hate spammers as well as the hate spammed. Maybe a billionaireless AI moderator to filter these is a better option.
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

This even sounds technically feasible without too much hassle.

Whilst we can't always be sure that all instances would honour such a "reply block", once the big ones do it, a lot is gained.

Smart idea. I wonder why no one has proposed it, already.

in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

Like when YouTube videos don't allow comments? Sounds good, BUT...
This wouldn't solve quoting harassment 😕
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

Hi Veronica
Not sure I understand the request here.
Are you saying I should be able to post and limit who can reply to zero, or some specific set of followers/followees?
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

There’s been a PR open for that for three years, which Mastodon gGmbH has worked hard to ignore 🙃 github.com/mastodon/mastodon/p…
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

I am so sorry, that you saw misogynistic thoughts.
I hope, that you will find a way, to heal from it and to keep them away in the future.
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

I really like the concept of naughty-lists for managing or filtering content, but I'm not entirely sold on the name. I think something like 'horasmen' should be part of the name to give it a unique twist. How about calling it 'horaser-list'? It sounds a bit more distinctive and fun. What do you think?
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

Is there a collaborative effort to build such a blacklist that exists currently? As a new FediAdmin I would be interested in that.
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

the biggest problem is people requiring proof before believing the experience of others. Yet even with proof, people refuse to believe or care. The issue fundamentally is the lack of respect & an unwillingness to face reality. It’s not like we don’t know this is a thing, so when people say there is a problem…when they reply they don’t see it —it’s about denial and disrespect. There is no more to discuss & proof unlikely to change their mind.
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

I agree that it’s problematic that we don’t have a way of knowing the scope of abusive posts.

I haven’t seen any of the abusive posts you are referring to. It would be easy to jump the conclusion that you are exaggerating the problem. But instead I choose to acknowledge that I don’t know how bad the problem is.

Part of me wants to know enough that I could have an informed opinion about those posts. But at the same time I don’t want abusive posts to get more exposure than necessary.

I won’t claim to have a perfect solution to any of this. I am thinking that some sort of distributed moderation system with some statistics visible to the public might be part of a good solution.

in reply to kasperd

@kasperd I very much want distributed moderation. I think it's critical, in fact. This already happens in an almost sneakernet-style way with sharing lists, but it's not real time and critically, not official.

I'd like to see an official, sanctioned ActivityPub blocklist server in which groups can control this themselves.

It's still whack-a-mole but you aren't playing it alone.

in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

, what was this remark concrete?

If don't want to drop it publicly share it privately.

in reply to Hidden Dragon ☑️

@verbrecher you're telling a woman to change her behavior if she doesn't want to deal with harassment.

That's... not good

in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

, yes harsh enough.

But did it work just to restrict / block / report this freak and that's it? Or not too simple in the case? :thaenkin:

in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

@vkc (Veronica Explains) This thread is worth a read. It contains actual practical solutions to a host of problems I've heard about many times over.

I hope of gets serious consideration.

in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

i get it. It's everywhere online . I'm still sorry you have to deal with it (likely not having the proper tools to deal with it).
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains)

With you on what you’re proposing & why; don’t have any better answers, but feel if the scope & goal can be tightly articulated, experts could offer best solutions for the time, etc. 🙂

This website uses cookies. If you continue browsing this website, you agree to the usage of cookies.