4 ms·

They should all be banned IMO. Just as an example of 'not cricket', my daughter recently had very good reason to block an instagram user. Except, if that user

They should all be banned IMO. Just as an example of 'not cricket', my daughter recently had very good reason to block an instagram user. Except, if that user is in any groups that you're a member of, in order to still see group messages, you must accept to still see their messages (and they yours) in those groups - or you must leave the group. Actually being able to block other users, whether they're in a group you're in, or not, does not seem like an insurmountable technical challenge to me, so I assume it's a policy 'nudge' to discourage blocking toxic people.

tmp538394722 6y ago
I mean... it could be juicing metrics as you say. I certainly have no love for these companies. But more likely its to minimize support, confusion, and a feeling of brokenness. Alice, Bob, and Charlie are in a group. Alice blocks Bob. Bob sends a message. Charlie responds to it. Alice says “what are you on about Charlie?” Because she didn’t see bobs message because she has him blocked. Alice and Charlie work out via messaging back and forth in the group that bob sent a message and that Alice has him blocked. That’s awkward for everyone. And happens every time bob sends a message in the group. How would you deal with that?
- jacknews 6y ago
  I think you're equating 'blocking' with 'shadowbanning'. I abhor that underhand practice, and can't think of any reason why it is valid. If you want to tell a user to 'go away, leave me alone', you should be able to block them without having to leave your groups - it doesn't need to be secretive.
  - tmp538394722 6y ago
    So then what happens in the scenario I laid out? You just fumble around every time Charlie responds to Bob and Alice gets confused? That’s reasonable for you? I mean it’s ok if you want to just say what they’re doing sucks. But I’d find your position more compelling if you could offer a reasonable alternative.
    - jacknews 6y ago
      you could show Bobs messages greyed out, and your messages are greyed out for him. Or with threaded conversations, you prune Bobs messages and all replies. It might be slightly confusing, but it's better than having to leave a group entirely, or see their abusive messages, when someone is harassing you.

tmp538394722 6y ago

I mean... it could be juicing metrics as you say. I certainly have no love for these companies. But more likely its to minimize support, confusion, and a feeling of brokenness. Alice, Bob, and Charlie are in a group. Alice blocks Bob. Bob sends a message. Charlie responds to it. Alice says “what are you on about Charlie?” Because she didn’t see bobs message because she has him blocked. Alice and Charlie work out via messaging back and forth in the group that bob sent a message and that Alice has him blocked. That’s awkward for everyone. And happens every time bob sends a message in the group. How would you deal with that?

jacknews 6y ago
I think you're equating 'blocking' with 'shadowbanning'. I abhor that underhand practice, and can't think of any reason why it is valid. If you want to tell a user to 'go away, leave me alone', you should be able to block them without having to leave your groups - it doesn't need to be secretive.
- tmp538394722 6y ago
  So then what happens in the scenario I laid out? You just fumble around every time Charlie responds to Bob and Alice gets confused? That’s reasonable for you? I mean it’s ok if you want to just say what they’re doing sucks. But I’d find your position more compelling if you could offer a reasonable alternative.
  - jacknews 6y ago
    you could show Bobs messages greyed out, and your messages are greyed out for him. Or with threaded conversations, you prune Bobs messages and all replies. It might be slightly confusing, but it's better than having to leave a group entirely, or see their abusive messages, when someone is harassing you.