4 ms·
They're acknowledging that it has some downsides, that they think they can resolve through other features that they'll develop later. > If you don't want peopl
by roblabla 2y ago
They're acknowledging that it has some downsides, that they think they can resolve through other features that they'll develop later.
> If you don't want people to be able to reply critically to a post, why not have a private profile or not post it in the first place?
The problem isn't people replying critically, it's people being assholes on the internet, leveraging their follower base to harass someone. This feature gives tool to the bluesky posters to protect themselves against this form of harassment.
Hence why they're going with it despite the downsides: it's a necessary feature for people to protect themselves against harassment.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- richbell 2y ago> The problem isn't people replying critically, it's people being assholes on the internet... it's a necessary feature for people to protect themselves against harassment. The problem is that "harassmemt" is a nebulous term. Many people inappropriately (in my opinion) claim any sort of dissenting voices are "harassment".
- xg15 2y agoAre you claiming there are no such things as shitstorms, dogpiling or cyberbullying?
- richbell 2y ago> Are you claiming there are no such things as shitstorms, dogpiling or cyberbullying? Please quote where you believe I made this claim.
- xg15 2y agoWell, how would you protect against cyberbullying then?
- richbell 2y ago> 1. We must do something. > 2. This is something. > 3. Therefore, we must do this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism
- xg15 2y agoPoint taken. Yeah, it's of course legitimate to argue against some specific tool or strategy to combat harassment, like the changes proposed here. But your post sounded as if the whole concept of "harassment" was problematic, due to the risk of people abusing the anti-harrasment tools for censorship. I agree, the risk is there and needs to adressed, but situations of real harassment and "mob dynamics", in which an individual user suffers real harm but can't do anything about it themselves, also happen frequently. I think it's dangerous to ignore those by throwing the whole concept under the bus.
- roblabla 2y agoOf course. But there are also very real cases of people quote-posting someone with an opinion they don't agree with, leveraging their follower-base to start dogpiling. Even without the harassment problems, this is already not a very good way to have a conversation, as you'll end up with a ton of people with the same viewpoint replying. But then things can go even further with people starting to send death-threats and other niceties of this kind to the OP - which is definitely harassment territory. Currently, there just isn't many good tools to protect yourself against this kind of dogpiling. --- Personally, I think both are necessary: A tool to protect against using quote-posts for dogpiling, and another to correct misinformation.
- o11c 2y agoI'd dare say: social media promotes the idea that any sort of dissenting voices is harassment. It's not a spontaneous belief on the part of the people who claim that.
- bee_rider 2y agoDissenting voices from a ton of anonymous people looks a lot like harassment, especially when their expectations for what normal debate and politeness look like don’t match yours.