They shouldn’t be able to do that!

  • FaceDeer@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 hours ago

    How is “not letting you see what I personally wrote” consider to be “unilaterally silencing you” ?

    It prevents me from responding to it.

    I can see it either way, because they’re public posts.

    I’m ok trying something else, like maybe what you suggested.

    I suspect not, because what I’m suggesting would entail an even looser set of restrictions on who can do what than what’s already in place.

    • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      16 hours ago

      it prevents you from responding to it
      it doesn’t prevent you from responding. you’re free to respond to everything else. you wouldn’t be anywhere close to being silenced.

      let me rephrase, i’m open to learning about your suggestion. I don’t really understand how that’d work. It sounds kinda like bluesky blocklists, where the blocklist maintainers are effectively like cross-community mods. A user wouldn’t be banned in a given community, but if they’re in a blocklist you subscribe to then as far as you’re concerned they are (because they couldn’t see your content and you couldn’t see theirs).
      if you’re talking about something more lenient then that, then I’d need to know details. but the point I was making is that I’m open to alternatives - I’m not married to reddit style blocking, I know it has problems, i just find the problems to be less severe than the lemmy style blocking muting.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        16 hours ago

        I’m not a Bluesky user so I haven’t seen this in operation first hand, but yeah, that sounds similar to what I have in mind.