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 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.
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.
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.
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).
💯. 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.
@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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
This is about the server not returning known subthreads started by people blocked by the post's author, not the viewer.
e.g., if we have A → B → C → D → E, where a → b means “b replies to a”, a...
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?
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.
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.
@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.
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. 🙂
vkc (Veronica Explains)
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.
🔗 David Sommerseth
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains) • • •Why ... just why can't so many people just behave ordinary and decent?
This is just sad. So sad
vkc (Veronica Explains)
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.
Plaid
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.
ColesStreetPothole
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains) • • •vkc (Veronica Explains)
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.
Je ne suis pas goth
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains) • • •vkc (Veronica Explains)
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.
vkc (Veronica Explains)
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.
vkc (Veronica Explains)
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.
vkc (Veronica Explains)
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
Papaexmatrikulatus
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains) • • •I'm hoping for a good solution to be found. You should not have to deal with harassment.
hamkaas
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains) • • •vkc (Veronica Explains)
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.
Tomáš Beneš
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains) • • •On the Mastodon i did it only once. But on boardgamearena... boah, hundreds of bad players (incl. their behavior).
Diogo Constantino
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains) • • •Happy Pride! Happy Summer! 🌈 😎
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains) • • •Some really good ideas here.
Sorry harrassment is a thing. That sucks.
Be better, men.
Chris Silverman 🌻
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.
vkc (Veronica Explains)
in reply to Chris Silverman 🌻 • • •Chris Silverman 🌻
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.
fraggLe!
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!
vkc (Veronica Explains)
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.
fraggLe!
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!
Thom, absolute station wagon
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.
Chris Lowles
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains) • • •heteroszuverén vagyok
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.
Interaction Policy - GoToSocial Documentation
docs.gotosocial.orgvkc (Veronica Explains)
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.
Tristen Grant
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains) • • •He should moderate his own speech before he types.
Simply don't be a dick to others.
Gabe
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.
Laukidh
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.
Not Just Bikes 🇳🇱
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
liebach not laibach
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains) • • •Lats (314 ppm)
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains) • • •Mina
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.
Niavy
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains) • • •This wouldn't solve quoting harassment 😕
Matthew Loxton
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains) • • •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?
Daphne Preston-Kendal
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains) • • •Hide subthreads by blocked users when looking at a post's descendants by ClearlyClaire · Pull Request #18468 · mastodon/mastodon
GitHubProf Prof Prof Dr Dr Sophia✔
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains) • • •I hope, that you will find a way, to heal from it and to keep them away in the future.
Debby
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains) • • •Just a trash panda
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains) • • •Jo with elbows up & chin up
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains) • • •kasperd
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.
vkc (Veronica Explains)
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.
Henrik Sundström
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains) • • •Hidden Dragon ☑️
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains) • • •, what was this remark concrete?
If don't want to drop it publicly share it privately.
vkc (Veronica Explains)
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
Hidden Dragon ☑️
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?
vkc (Veronica Explains)
in reply to Hidden Dragon ☑️ • • •Jonathan Lamothe
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.
aprilfollies likes this.
Warthunder
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains) • • •Su_G
in reply to vkc (Veronica Explains) • • •