@dansup This is how Bluesky's "nuclear block" works and it's great for silencing reply guys.

@dansup I disagree. But I think if you block someone, you shouldn't be allowed to share or interact with the posts of who you blocked. And you should only be allowed to share your own and edit or choose to delete them yourselves. UNLESS they establish a misuse of the report function, which should be determined by more than one moderator with a place to privately discuss the matters.

There is at least one GitHub request for this.
Eg https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/15631

@dansup

@dansup Should be optional?

I blocked so many people on Twitter and Facebook, but their older quote are valid and merely giving context.

Blocking people sometimes means "there's no wrong with them, I simply not interested in their post and don't want them to see me anymore."

@dansup

Since a whole bunch of people replying to this post apparently didn't

1) read it, or

2) understand it, let's parse:

"Blocking someone should remove their replies from your posts"

So

"Blocking someone who replies to your post"

"should remove their replies from your posts"

and further they will not ever see any of your posts in the future, and thus not be able to reply to them

Backgrounder for a couple people:

You may demand your 'right to free speech' (however you phrase it), but I demand an equal and reciprocal right to never see a single word you post ever again

@dansup No because this would be censorship

@dansup Let's imagine I post a bunch of antivax nonsense (or fascism, etc) and then block everyone who debunks me. Their replies disappear, only leaving those that agree with me.

Now it looks like everyone agrees with me.

@dansup
LinkedIn was horrible for many reasons (I quit the platform more than a year ago).

But there was at least one thing they did right: for threads/posts you started yourself, they let you delete comments from other users.

I haven't had a need for that here. It'd be a nice option to have, though.

@dansup

Just an idea (maybe not a good one) - What if blocking someone flags all their responses to the post as "blocked by original poster" so everyone knows this person was blocked. If readers agree that the person was inappropriate, abusive, or just downright toxic they can block them too, and if enough people block them the account is suspended/dissolved.

@dansup Agreed. Pretty much every platform that I am on supports this, including most FOSS platforms. It is a widely support basic moderation tool.

Every time it comes up, you'll get replies worrying about the theoretical risks, but Mastodon is like.. the only place that doesn't do this.

In my mind this is exactly like how Bluesky devs hem and haw about editing posts.

Everything allows for this, and those platforms are fine. We can just do it.

@dansup I kinda disagree here. I get the intention but personal blocks should only apply to your account, not others. (This also effectiviely makes block lists public which Blueskt has shown us to be a major cause for concern)

What you describe should only apply to accounts banned on the instance the OP is on (so they can't see posts and should not be able to reply to them (although this does not solve simply screenshoting/linking but at least prevents direct harassment))

@dansup I get the intention, but with that implementation, fedi becomes a propaganda platform where everyone can post any shit and just delete anyone calling it out as such.
I rather live with unwanted comments under my posts.

@dansup I’m unsure how far this should go. I’m a free speech absolutist but I also respect the right to ignore, which blocking achieves.

A sticky problem. If I was designing something in this space I’d probably leave replies visible on the TL but flag them conspicuously as being from a blocked account.

Messy. I don’t like my idea either.

@dansup That is indeed what you expect. I have never tested it, as in, had no need to block anyone yet. Yes you would think a block should remove all replies made by that person to your posts.