2 ms·

I'm sorry that's happened to you. There definitely should be ways to mitigate that. There's not a lot happening on this front to my knowledge in the Jabber/XMPP

I'm sorry that's happened to you. There definitely should be ways to mitigate that. There's not a lot happening on this front to my knowledge in the Jabber/XMPP ecosystem, but there's already building blocks in place which effectively limit abuse: - Jabber addresses (JIDs) are not broadcast to everyone in public chat, only to the admins of services you use, except in private encrypted chatrooms (for encryption key retrieval) - most public chatrooms support nicknames, so you can have different nicknames in every room - it's easy with some clients to support multiple accounts to separate your activities - your address cannot be automatically gathered from 3rd party information (eg. a phone number) unless you precisely declare it in your contact information (vCard) or use a server which relies on such feature (like quicky.im to use your phone number as account name) - 3rd party information cannot be leaked from your address unless you explicitly declare it in your contact information (vCard) ; it's quite common for services based on phone numbers such as Signal to leak your phone number to third parties Unfortunately, there is nothing yet like a Web of Trust or reputation system which you could use, for example to only display friend requests from friends of friends or something like that. And there's no support for single-use aliases as we have in the email world. But there is some level of interest for that and other fields of experimentation, and there's overall strong interest in keeping users safe and happy from the community at large, and a vast majority of server operators. Many servers are operated by non-profits and much like in the Fediverse don't hesitate to defederate with a server whose admins are not interested in preventing abuse from their network. Following some issues with misogynistic neonazis in a public chatrooms a few months ago, we also setup a chatroom to discuss such issues on xmpp:abuse@joinjabber.org?join and you're more than welcome to join us and formulate ideas on how we can improve in this domain. In case you don't want to setup an account for that, you can reach the chatroom via https://anon.joinjabber.org https://anon.joinjabber.org (works on Tor browser).

floatingatoll 5y ago
It's okay. It started on ICQ and it's continued on every major Internet-connected social network that has ever existed. Exhaustion appears to have set in somewhat, but I'm still comforted to hear that you're studying the problem. There's certainly no support for "I don't wish to be contacted by people who are confirmed abusers" (which requires some sort of centralization and human review), because neither voting nor web of trust on their own will address the problems of sock puppets online versus real human beings, cooperative manipulation by groups of abusers, and how to select among all possible codes of conducts for one that defines and demonstrates acceptable (to me) decisions about what is abusive behavior. I appreciate the invite, but my day job takes priority, and I'm not able to allocate time for side projects this year.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  > neither voting nor web of trust on their own will address the problems of sock puppets online versus real human beings, cooperative manipulation by groups of abusers That's definitely what WoTs are about, because a group of harassers trying to boost one another's reputation will not be part of your social graph (or at least not closely) so their scheme would be useless. The main reason WoTs have turned out of fashion is they leak an incredible about of metadata about interpersonal relationships, which can lead to imprisonment or outright death ("We kill based on metadata" - NSA). However there's active research as part of the GNU/Net project on Fog Of Trust, a zero-knowledge implementation of a WoT which preserves the social graph. I hope more serious cryptographers give this approach a look because from my non-cryptographer's perspective it looks like it would offer the best from both worlds of decentralized WoTs and centralized anti-abuse systems. > how to select among all possible codes of conducts The problem with CoCs is they're abstract constructs often disconnected from actual moderation practices. You can have the worst CoC or no COC at all and very friendly/respectful admins who will go to lengths to protect their users, or on the contrary a very good-looking CoC that will never be respected in practice because admins will find a loophole in there or threaten you for your outstanding hysteria when pointing out that you've been receiving hundreds of death/rape threats in the past hours. It's the same as with any legal system. Of course a more respectful legal code is better than a bad legal code, but that's not what's actually solving problems. Legal tools cannot solve human (political) problems, only we collectively can do it. The same can be said about the law in most countries, it's just on paper but however it gets applied/interpreted is up to the cops and judges who are happy to make your life as a victim more miserable. > I appreciate the invite, but my day job takes priority, and I'm not able to allocate time for side projects this year. Good luck for the day job! If by any chance you can still find time to collect a few links you find would give us important perspective on the topic, or even to write down your own reflections, consider us interested.
  - floatingatoll 5y ago
    You hit on the real core problem: There's no connection between the legal protections against abusive behaviors by strangers and unrestricted communication with strangers over the Internet :)

floatingatoll 5y ago

It's okay. It started on ICQ and it's continued on every major Internet-connected social network that has ever existed. Exhaustion appears to have set in somewhat, but I'm still comforted to hear that you're studying the problem. There's certainly no support for "I don't wish to be contacted by people who are confirmed abusers" (which requires some sort of centralization and human review), because neither voting nor web of trust on their own will address the problems of sock puppets online versus real human beings, cooperative manipulation by groups of abusers, and how to select among all possible codes of conducts for one that defines and demonstrates acceptable (to me) decisions about what is abusive behavior. I appreciate the invite, but my day job takes priority, and I'm not able to allocate time for side projects this year.

southerntofu 5y ago
> neither voting nor web of trust on their own will address the problems of sock puppets online versus real human beings, cooperative manipulation by groups of abusers That's definitely what WoTs are about, because a group of harassers trying to boost one another's reputation will not be part of your social graph (or at least not closely) so their scheme would be useless. The main reason WoTs have turned out of fashion is they leak an incredible about of metadata about interpersonal relationships, which can lead to imprisonment or outright death ("We kill based on metadata" - NSA). However there's active research as part of the GNU/Net project on Fog Of Trust, a zero-knowledge implementation of a WoT which preserves the social graph. I hope more serious cryptographers give this approach a look because from my non-cryptographer's perspective it looks like it would offer the best from both worlds of decentralized WoTs and centralized anti-abuse systems. > how to select among all possible codes of conducts The problem with CoCs is they're abstract constructs often disconnected from actual moderation practices. You can have the worst CoC or no COC at all and very friendly/respectful admins who will go to lengths to protect their users, or on the contrary a very good-looking CoC that will never be respected in practice because admins will find a loophole in there or threaten you for your outstanding hysteria when pointing out that you've been receiving hundreds of death/rape threats in the past hours. It's the same as with any legal system. Of course a more respectful legal code is better than a bad legal code, but that's not what's actually solving problems. Legal tools cannot solve human (political) problems, only we collectively can do it. The same can be said about the law in most countries, it's just on paper but however it gets applied/interpreted is up to the cops and judges who are happy to make your life as a victim more miserable. > I appreciate the invite, but my day job takes priority, and I'm not able to allocate time for side projects this year. Good luck for the day job! If by any chance you can still find time to collect a few links you find would give us important perspective on the topic, or even to write down your own reflections, consider us interested.
- floatingatoll 5y ago
  You hit on the real core problem: There's no connection between the legal protections against abusive behaviors by strangers and unrestricted communication with strangers over the Internet :)