search

sublinks / sublinks-api

MIT License
74 stars 18 forks source link

Add option to Restrict users (Two way blocking) #287

Open DraconicNEO opened 8 months ago

DraconicNEO commented 8 months ago

On Lemmy there is only the option to block people which is treated as a mute, doesn't utilize the Activitypub block function at all. It's great for hiding a user's content but is absolutely terrible for dealing with harassment or spammers.

I propose adding an option to restrict users, this would stop them from being able to interact with the user who restricted them, they wouldn't be able to reply to posts, comments, or vote on submissions by the person who restricted them. Unlike on other platforms that hide the blocking user's content from the blocked user I don't think any content should be hidden because it is all public anyway. It should be treated like an individual profile ban.

This system would allow users to protect themselves against malicous users as well as spam bots by preventing them from being able to interract with their posts.

Also in addition this proposal would also rename the block function which is used in Lemmy to Mute, as that is all it is doing, this system would be called Restrict. Also if a user on Mastodon blocks a user on Sublinks, Sublinks would treat it as a restrict against the blocked user and stop them from interracting with the Mastodon user.

lazyguru commented 8 months ago

This is really nice in theory. However, as long as we maintain compatibility with Lemmy (intended to be forever), Lemmy instances will be able to continue the harassment and this change will have no affect on them.

lionirdeadman commented 8 months ago

We should go forward and make things better when it is possible for us to do so. Choosing what to implement based on other software will make improvements harder or impossible because on the fediverse, people can always intentionally not support things (Lemmy or any other software).

I mean, a lot of issues in this repo regarding moderation are about features that are simply not supported in Lemmy after all.

lazyguru commented 8 months ago

My comment wasn't to say we shouldn't do it. It was only to call out that it won't be perfect and until the number of Sublinks instances (or at least the number of communities on Sublinks instances) gets big enough it will "feel" like this feature isn't even working.

DraconicNEO commented 8 months ago

This is really nice in theory. However, as long as we maintain compatibility with Lemmy (intended to be forever), Lemmy instances will be able to continue the harassment and this change will have no affect on them.

Compatibility with Lemmy though is to make it easier on existing instances so they won't have to start from scratch if they want to migrate to it, same thing goes for app developers.

Also making it incompatible wouldn't really fix the issue since they would still communicate via activitypub, like all the other activitypub services, and what we need to do instead is to account for damages caused by non-complainant servers and clients. For servers that do things that our server doesn't like we simply drop the federation request for the non-compliant action, it's not perfect but it's all we can do, the same goes for existing actions like bans and content removal, if the other server doesn't comply there isn't much we can do except ignore the federations for that specific non-compliant content.