It always makes me sad when another fedi user - and, in my experience, it is always a woman - says that they feel unsafe posting here, because of replies they get.

It always makes me sad when another fedi user - and, in my experience, it is always a woman - says that they feel unsafe posting here, because of replies they get.

Control over who can reply to a toot would be amazing, as a way to improve this without them needing to mute or block post-harm.

It always makes me sad when another fedi user - and, in my experience, it is always a woman - says that they feel unsafe posting here, because of replies they get.

Control over who can reply to a toot would be amazing, as a way to improve this without them needing to mute or block post-harm.

It always makes me sad when another fedi user - and, in my experience, it is always a woman - says that they feel unsafe posting here, because of replies they get.

Control over who can reply to a toot would be amazing, as a way to improve this without them needing to mute or block post-harm.

@neil new here, what’s a “fedi”? I keep seeing this word but I can’t understand what it is

@neil

Wo ist das Problem, dann muss man halt seinen Beitrag mit der Einstellung "Only Follower" veröffentlichen!
Ist halt schade um die Möglichkeit seine Gedanken in größerer Runde auszutauschen und auf neue interessante Menschen zu treffen!
Vielleicht hilft dann auch der Umzug auf eine andere, kleinere (?) Instanz.
Oft lohnt sich auch die Kommunikation auf die Metaebene zu heben, konnte so schon manches Missverständnis klären!

@tknarr It's all good

@VSRT

Welcome!

The term "fediverse" is just slang for the network(s) of federated services/servers, of which your server (wehavecookies.social) is one.

A "fedi" user, here, is someone who uses one or more fediverse services.

@neil that would be perfect. An “only allow replies from people you follow” option would help so much.

It always makes me sad when another fedi user - and, in my experience, it is always a woman - says that they feel unsafe posting here, because of replies they get.

Control over who can reply to a toot would be amazing, as a way to improve this without them needing to mute or block post-harm.

@alex @neil Yes and no. If someone has fears, then yes. But the way I find new people to follow is when they interact with my posts. Having an option like that turned on would prevent me from doing that.

So I guess my answer really is YES, as long as it's an OPTION.

I have no qualms about blocking assholes, and I really don't care what they say behind my back. Unlike them, I have a life and it isn't centered on social media.‍️

@neil
I've already been called the N word and I've only been here a week or so. It's surprising how nasty people get when online.

@evdelen As you say, that is post visibility, not reply control.

@neil I'm still looking at what's involved in creating subscribeable blocklists. The basic hook into the block functionality on the server is obvious enough, but the list itself involves learning everything about the ActivityPub protocol and the federation and syndication models. Making it useful involves having categorization and user ratings while preventing abuse of them too. Straightforward in concept, terminally hirsute in implementation.

@neil @evdelen Yeah, but if they can't see it, they can't reply to it. I think it's a viable option for posts you don't want just anyone to see and reply to. I use it occasionally when I'm posting stuff of a more personal nature that isn't exactly private.

@tknarr @neil this idea is not new to the fediverse. Multiple major efforts have occurred and then faded away after being hijacked for personal vendettas.

The problem is it's a social issue more than a technological one.

@HunterZ @neil Subscribeable blocklists are a technical issue, and I can state a number of good use cases for them.

Abuse of a blocklist by it's creator (misleading subscribers about criteria, doing a bait-and-switch after getting a subscriber base) is completely separate, and yes _that's_ a social issue. Hence my concern for categorization and ratings, and ways to prevent those from being abused to give a list a false reputation.

@HunterZ @neil Subscribeable blocklists are a technical issue, and I can state a number of good use cases for them.

Abuse of a blocklist by it's creator (misleading subscribers about criteria, doing a bait-and-switch after getting a subscriber base) is completely separate, and yes _that's_ a social issue. Hence my concern for categorization and ratings, and ways to prevent those from being abused to give a list a false reputation.

@tknarr @neil I'm saying that the implementation of them becomes overwhelmingly a social issue. It's already been tried and failed multiple times at the instance level because of abuse. All it takes is collusion among a group of bad actors to pump up ratings etc.

It always makes me sad when another fedi user - and, in my experience, it is always a woman - says that they feel unsafe posting here, because of replies they get.

Control over who can reply to a toot would be amazing, as a way to improve this without them needing to mute or block post-harm.

@neil I'm still looking at what's involved in creating subscribeable blocklists. The basic hook into the block functionality on the server is obvious enough, but the list itself involves learning everything about the ActivityPub protocol and the federation and syndication models. Making it useful involves having categorization and user ratings while preventing abuse of them too. Straightforward in concept, terminally hirsute in implementation.