They shouldn’t be able to do that!
Blocking means you can’t see them. It makes them non existent to you. It doesn’t hide you from them. It’s working as intended.
I’d call that “muting” rather than blocking.
And it leaves vulnerable communities open to abuse, because they’re unable to police their communities and kick out harassers.
Moderators are still able to ban people from communities.
Easier job to do when you’re actually getting reports.
- Reporting = this breaks the rules please moderate
- Blocking = Fuck them, even if they rechnicly abide by the rules I don’t want them near me
- Muting = I don’t want to see what this person does but don’t want to hurt them beyond that
i do that to, with the 2nd bullet point, sometimes i block people to avoid arguements, even if one of the parties maybe in the wrong.(either you misspoke something or the other guy was misinterpreting) most of the time, i block because they dont argue in good faith.(i almost never report people)
Lemmy communities and irl communities are different things that only sometimes overlap.
For example, the irl trans community could be harassed in a Lemmy gaming community. If mods aren’t sympathetic, then they’re torn between just accepting the harassment, or forking the gaming community. While this is what Lemmy was meant to do, practically most Lemmy communities aren’t large enough to meaningful support more than one instance, so one of the instances is going to wither on the vine. And most Lemmy mods seem overworked, besides.
I’m not sure what you’re suggesting. If a gaming community’s members are harassing a trans community, could the trans community’s moderators not simply ban everyone from that gaming community from the trans community? That’s a power that moderators have. You could also report the gaming community to the administrators of their instance and if the administrators thought it was a problem they could shut down that community. You could also ask your own instance’s administrators to defederate from the gaming community’s instance. All of those things are things that can be done with the way the Fediverse is currently set up.
all of those are unrealistic options
I said that forking the community to begin with isn’t realistic. There would be no “trans-friendly gaming” community because it wouldn’t have enough members to sustain it. Lemmy is too small to sustain multiple communities for the same topic, for all but the most popular topics. When you see multiple communities for a topic, almost always all but one is a ghost town.
so splitting the community, or defederating aren’t really options
hopefully going to mod, or failing that the admin, would be successful. but mods and admins are criminally overworked already, and lemmy is too small to maintain a healthy mod pool.I don’t have great technical solutions here, unfortunately.
I’m just trying to explain that what OP wants is reasonable, and everyone here shitting on him is not being reasonable.I’m just trying to explain that what OP wants is reasonable,
And I maintain that it’s not reasonable. You (and OP) want individual users to be able to control what other individual users can see and do on the Fediverse. They’ve tried that on Reddit. RunawayFixer found this experiment, for example. The results were not good from a pragmatic perspective, let alone a philosophical one.
I think you’re going to have to accept that in a free environment there are going to be people saying things and reading things that you don’t approve of. You can create a community with whatever rules you want to enforce there, but you can’t enforce your rules on other communities. Just as they can’t enforce them on yours.
I’m not trying to enforce rules on other communities.
im not even trying to enforce rules on any communityreddit-style blocking would allow the person to continue to be in that community, they wouldn’t even need to be kicked out.
its crazy that you’re framing personally blocking someone so they cant reply to it as though I’m changing the rules for lemmy communities.
Like, OP wasn’t even saying that blocking someone should hide my content from the person I blocked, just that it should stop them from replying to it. it doesn’t even have to be reddit style, it just has to be more than shutting your eyes and ears and saying “lalalalala”
If they are running their own communities yes they can. Mods can and do ban people from the communities.
lemmy communities and irl communities aren’t the same, they only sometimes partially overlap.
That’s unfair. It’s rather fair they don’t see me, I blocked them for a reason.
The only way to do that in a federated system would be to effectively make blocks public. That has its own disadvantages.
Sorry I’m a nurse, explain it to me like I’m five years old.
It’s hard to control which Information other people get in a system where many servers share information like posts and comments. Think of it as throwing your post on a public wall. Everyone that walks by will be able to see it.
It’s (relatively) easy to control what information you want to see. Or at least information from which sources you want to see, or not see.
Since each instance is its own ‘website’ that shares content with each other, your block would need to be publicly available so that every other site can see it and implement it.
Thanks Final conclusion, no offence: Blocking is rather useless in the Fediverse, unless you submit to complete ignorance.
That’s mostly true; it’s optimized for wide dissemination of information, and the idea of keeping a specific person from seeing information that’s shown to the rest of the world isn’t very compatible with that. It doesn’t really work on Reddit or web forums that are visible without logging in either since a person you’ve blocked can still view your posts anonymously.
A bit more looking brings me to the ActivityPub spec. Your server should tell the blocked user’s server about the block, and the blocked user’s server shouldn’t allow them to interact with your posts or comments (that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be able to see your posts or comments).
The thing is, in network protocol documents, should means the behavior is optional. Fediverse software doesn’t have to support blocks at all according to the protocol.
Imagine a hypothetical situation where I have beef with you. I create a second account and block you. I use this account to scout your posts, then using that other account, I go to all of the posts you’re commenting on, and post comments calling you out for being… I don’t know, whatever nasty thing I want to call you out for. Because that account has blocked you, you can’t see those posts (and presumably not the replies to them, either), and can’t defend yourself.
What problem have we solved?
The problem you’ve solved is that they’re not harassing you in your spaces, and your communities.
If they wanna cry about me in their basement with their own friends, that’s ok. But I want to put hurdles, at least some inconveniences, between myself and their ability to harass me in my communities. Force them to manage 30 accounts, etc.Well multi accounting is the next problem… Just live an unpeacefull live then…
Go back to Reddit? This system stops witch hunts, effectively stops echo chambers from gaining traction, and helps protect against power tripping mods.
Much like someone else told you, you can control what you see. If you don’t see the trolls do they really exist for you? If you don’t go looking for their “ghost” you won’t find it
Blocking someone is not a tool to silence them. It’s a tool to ignore them.
Yeah, by blocking them you are saying YOU don’t want to see their posts. That doesn’t mean you get to make that decision for everyone else. I don’t see the problem here.
I never had a twitter account, but made a bsky account just to support people moving away from there even though I’d them they move to mastodon.
Anyway, I saw a post claiming a certain fetish term was now forbidden because it was being used a slur. I commented that I’ve only ever heard it used to refer to a real person when the person in question was using it to describe themselves. I got some positive responses, but the ended up getting blocked from replying when they disagreed with me. Can 3rd parties see blocks or did it just look like I chickened out?
I didn’t care for that and I think these little “features” of twitter that people have gotten use to has twisted how to interact with other people. On reddit or lemmy, the topic is the main focus and the people managing the topic should be the only ones who control what gets said there. With twitter and bsky, the opening post is the main focus and they get control of what gets said. I prefer the former over that latter.
Reddit also blocks you from replying. Not just to that person, but to the comment thread in general. So many people do the insult-block to “win” a conversation.
The mods of the sub are the ones to decide who gets blocked though. Not the person you’re auguring with, unless you’re arguing with is a mod.
The mods can ban you, but anyone can block you and stop you from commenting on threads they are involved in.
Aren’t blocks visible on reddit though? It’s been a while since I used it, so maybe I forgot. At the very least, it was considered bad form there outside of direct harassment. I think I was only stalked and harassed once though reddit comments and I just called them out on it to end it.
Sort of. The posts show as ‘Unavailable’ and you get an esoteric error if you try to reply to a thread they’re involved in. It doesn’t say outright that you’re blocked though.
A block should also be able to prevent them from seeing your activity. That would not constitute silencing the blocked individual as they can still go anywhere and talk to/see anyone else on the fediverse, just not you.
No, I don’t think that would be good. So for example if there was a guy who thought we should all be eating lead. And every time he posts you put up facts about how eating lead was poisonous. And then the lead guy blocked you. Then every time the lead guy posts about how everyone should eat lead, you wouldn’t see it and so you wouldn’t be able to reply with how lead is poisonous.
So if the lead guy blocked everyone who disagreed with him publicly. Then the lead guy can just post whatever they want and no who knew lead was poisonous would reply because they wouldn’t see the post. So others who didn’t know lead was poisonous would start seeing this guy posting about eating lead without being challenged. And so they might think it’s a good thing.
I see what you mean. Personally I’m gonna side with the folks that need the block functionality as a defense against stalking/harassment though.
The lead eater can ban anyone they want but that doesn’t stop others from posting direct challenges to the lead eater’s rhetoric elsewhere. I think its better to help those in need than to leave them vulnerable with less than ideal tools to protect themselves.
But even that case doesn’t work because someone could use a different account (or no account at all) to do the stalking.
There is a need for more precise terminology. We should refer to “block” as stopping someone from interacting with you or your submissions/comments and “mute”/“ignore” as making it so that the person’s own actions cannot be seen by you.
Discord recently made this distinction; it makes sense imo
I think communicating that someone is blocked is a useful part of blocking. Even if it’s just a notification after comment “you have a blocked reply, it will not be visible to the poster”.
Someone else in this thread pointed out that this would just encourage bad actors to make sock puppet accounts to get around being blocked.
Bad actors already do that.
I could see someone being frustrated that from a third party, it looks like you are not responding to a reply and that person could spin that as a concession that they were right
I could see a compromise, where a direct reply from such a blocked/muted person is allowed, but indicated so that people are aware a response could not have been done.
I have no issue with this whatsoever. I block people so that I don’t need to see their posts, not that they couldn’t see mine. If you don’t want others reading what you post online, then don’t post online.
Also, while other locations in the Fediverse might disable access to unauthenticated persons, comments and post in Lemmy are generally public in that way. So, a blocked user could simply logout (or visit from a different instance) to see the content.
Also, as a third-party I do want someone (e.g. a fact checker) to be able reply to a comment with more information, so that I can see it, even if the commenter doesn’t want to see replies (from the “woke mob” or wikipedians, e.g.).
I understand some people think the reply thread under their comments is somehow “owned” and should be “controlled” by them, but I don’t agree. I think this should also be true in most places on the Fediverse, tho it isn’t (as I understand it) on Mastodon (and the like).
This sounds like the words of an abuser.
That’s just an unhinged thing to say.
Please rethink your life
Huh . I will.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creature
u ok?
derbated buh crater
Perhaps some people want others reading what they post online but don’t want to be bullied.
You can block bullies. They can continue to waste their time writing mean messages but those will never reach you.
Blocks work the way you want them to on Reddit. And all it did was allow people with fringe political beliefs and misinformation fetishes to stop decent people from refuting them. This is for the best.
It also makes Lemmy objectively less safe because it’s much less effective at limiting stalking and harassment. Especially since way blocks work on Lemmy isn’t clearly communicated to the user.
If you block someone you will never see their harassment.
Don’t make me tap the sign.
if the “Cyberbullying” stays online that is the correct solution, if the cyberbully starts influencing the real world you failed opsec and should bring it up with admins (/police depending on what it is)
I get the feeling that some of those blocking people can’t suppress the urge to check what others are commenting to them, defeating the point of the block lol
The solution here is obvious - creating an instance and/or community with stricter moderation rules, much like blåhaj.zone.
Each instance/community has the ability to set their own general rules and whilst (yes) this means that an individual person can’t guarantee their “safety” everywhere it does mean anyone can create their own little bubble and then pick & choose which parts of the fediverse to connect with.
The fediverse is at its core a free speech project, which is why I like it. There are many other platforms out there that focus on safety.
I think the way it works is good.
-
If the blocked user browses on another account (or not logged in at all), they can’t tell that you have blocked them.
-
Bot/spam accounts can’t use the blocking system to stop users who target these accounts to call them out on their disguised malicious behavior. This became a problem on Reddit when they changed their blocking system away from what we have here.
Edit: I guess there is a downside of if so many of the sane users block the same nutjobs, then there won’t be anybody to downvote or refute those nutjobs
I guess there is a downside of if so many of the sane users block the same nutjobs, then there won’t be anybody to downvote or refute those nutjobs
This has nothing to do with the block system. No matter how it worked, this would be the case. What you’re describing isn’t a block system, it’s moderation, which we still have (though it’s obviously up to the moderators of any given community). That is to say, blocking only affects what you see. Moderation affects what everyone sees, which is what you’re talking about here.
if so many of the sane users block the same nutjobs, then there won’t be anybody to downvote or refute those nutjobs
Don’t worry, a lot of us never block anybody, specifically so we can do exactly that.
i used to do that, but my sanity suffered, now i block liberally
But the nut job will be stuck in his own bubble unable to talk to everyone, which is more sane than engaging them
True…
-
How is it not fair? You get to decide what you can see and say. You don’t get to decide what I can see and say.
That style of blocking makes sense for more personal social media, but I don’t think it fits a public forum like the Threadiverse. On Reddit, bad actors were able to weaponize blocking to hide from anyone who would disagree with them, anyone who would push back against misinformation. That did a lot more harm than good.
Everything you post here is public, and you should expect that anyone can see it, even people you do not like. If you don’t want to see someone you don’t like, that’s what blocking is for, but you shouldn’t expect to be able control who can see your posts when they’re all public to begin with.
If something is so sensitive that you think you need to hide it from someone you don’t like, then this probably isn’t the platform to post it on at all.
Some users would write their reply and then quickly block the other person so their points couldn’t be contested.
This has happened to me multiple times. And yes, I did consider it to be a serious issue. It’s too abusive of a feature
I’d call what you’re describing “muting” rather than blocking.
I used to agree with you, but then I spoke with some people from persecuted minorities, and this style of blocking just gives power to their abusers rather than keeping their communities and themselves safe.
Yes they can get a new account, but it’s another hurdle, and if we erect enough hurdles then it’ll catch enough of them. Defense in depth.
We’ve seen the problems with Reddit’s style of blocking already.
If someone’s being truly abusive, that’s something you should report to moderators or instance admins.
I agree it has problems, but that doesn’t mean that anything is better.
Reporting someone is good, but isn’t that subject to the exact same reasons why “it won’t work”? If reddit style blocking someone isn’t effective anyways, why would admin bans be effective?
This assumes that admins and mods even have the capacity to deal with all this shit, which seems to be very uncertain.I don’t understand what you mean. Moderator bans do work, that’s a moderator’s job.
a common response I’ve been getting is “blocking doesn’t work, they just need to make a new account”
but then they say “if its really a problem, then they just need to report the user”
but if making a new account would defeat blocking, then making a new account would defeat reporting a user. its either effective in both places or neither place.That isn’t what I said. You’re replying to me to talk about somebody else’s argument, while completely ignoring mine.
sorry i was getting it mixed up, i’ve had a very similar conversations a few times and that rebuttal came up multiple times.
mods and admins are overworked, and they can’t always be expected to keep up to date with dogwhistles along with everything else they have to manage. besides, harassment doesn’t always appear to break ToS - starting rumours and spreading lies about someone can be very difficult to prove to a mod, but can have huge repercussions in some communities.
and besides, it can take a while before mods/admins are able to take action.IMO I think a few things should exist.
I should be able to prevent someone from replying to my content even if I can’t prevent them from seeing it.
Additionally, I think there should be a best effort to make invite-only/private communities. I know that the fediverse makes this technically difficult, but having something is better than having nothing.
Two sides of the medal…
Thank you for explaining to me why I didn’t like blocking but couldn’t express why.
That’s why I love Voyager for mobile viewing. Not sure the feature’s exclusivity, but you can tag people and add up or downvotes to their accounts total. For instance, you were at +70 upvotes from me. But if I didn’t like you, I could add a tag to your account with why or whatever, and add -1000, effectively highlighting, for me, how much less I enjoy your input compared to others. It doesn’t hide their bullshit but makes it super obvious who sucks complete ass!
Along the vein of blocking, I like how lemmy does it. I can see the block person left a comment and choose to read it or ignore it.
How do you do that? I’m on voyager and didn’t know about this. I would love tags
Settings>User Tags>Track Votes! :D
Awesome! Ty!
Yup, it’s pretty rad! To add or remove stuff on a user account, tap their name then use the three do a in the upper-right to get to tags. From there, it’s easy peasy!
Thanks that’s useful!
And its on froid
How the Threadiverse works today — blocking hides content from blocked users, but doesn’t affect their ability to comment — is how Reddit originally worked, and I think that it was by far a better system.
Reddit only adopted the “you can’t reply to a comment from someone who has blocked you” system later. What it produced was people getting into fights, adding one more comment, and then blocking the other person so that they’d be unable to respond, so it looked like the other person had conceded the point.
A thousand percent this.
Reddit’s new system makes a ton of sense until you see it in action in a cat fight with the blocked user having to edit their previous comment to clarify they’re now unable to respond to anything the other user is saying and everything turns into a mess.While I could totally agree neither method is perfect, it only takes one heated thread on Reddit to see why (IMO) this new method is much worse than the previous.
I’m not totally sure about the chronology, but I think that the “old->new” block change on Reddit may have been due to calls from Twitter users. Most of the people I saw back on Reddit complaining about the old behavior prior to the change were saying “on Twitter, blocked users can’t respond”.
On Reddit, the site is basically split up into a series of forums, subreddits. On the Threadiverse, same idea, but the term is communities. And that’s the basic unit of moderation — that is, people set up a set of rules for how what is permitted on a given community, and most restrictions arise from that. There are Reddit sitewide restrictions (and here, instancewide), but those don’t usually play a huge role compared to the community-level things.
So, on Twitter — and I’ve never made a Twitter account, and don’t spend much time using it, but I believe I’ve got a reasonable handle on how it works — there’s no concept of a topic-specific forum. The entire site is user-centric. Comments don’t live in forums talking about a topic; they only are associated with the text in them and with the parent comment. So if you’re on Twitter, there has to be some level of content moderation unless you want to only have sitewide restrictions. On Twitter, having a user be able to act as “moderator” for responses makes a lot more sense than on Reddit, because Twitter lacks an analog to subreddit moderators.
So Twitter users, who were accustomed to having a “block” feature, naturally found Reddit’s “block” feature, which did something different from what they were used to, to be confusing. They click “block”, and what it actually does is not what they expect — and worse, at a surface glance, the behavior is the same. They think that they’re acting as a moderator, but they’re just controlling visibility of comments to themselves. Then they have an unpleasant surprise when they realize that what they’ve been doing isn’t what they think that they’ve been doing.
Yeah, looking through a Twitter’s user lens I can see why they’re confused. What on Reddit was a block, on Twitter would be a Mute. Maybe they should call it that.
I’d also add, for people who feel that they don’t have a good way to “hang up” on a conversation that they don’t want to be participating any further without making it look like they agree with the other user, the convention is to comment something like this:
“I don’t think that we’re likely to agree on this point, so I’m afraid that we’re going to have to agree to disagree.”
That way, it’s clear to everyone else reading the thread that the breaking-off user isn’t simply conceding the point, but it also doesn’t prevent the other user from responding (or, for that matter, other users from taking up the thread).
EDIT: Also, on Reddit, I remember a lot of users who had been subjected to the “one more comment and a block” stuff then going to try to find random other comments in the thread where other users might see their comment, responding to those comments complaining that the other user had blocked them, and then posting their comment there, which tended to turn the whole thread into an ugly soup.
Also, with Reddit’s new system, at least with some clients and if I remember correctly, the old Web UI, there was no clear indication as to why the comment didn’t take effect — it looked like some sort of internal error, which tended to frustrate users. Obviously, that’s not a fundamental problem with a “blocking a user also prevents responding” system, but it was a pretty frustrating aspect of Reddit’s implementation of it.
A lot of people here never had a stalker and it shows.
If you’re concerned about someone being able to see your activity, no blacklisting-based system — which is what OP is talking about in terms of “blocking” would be – on a system without expensive identifiers (which the Threadiverse is not and Reddit is not — both let you make new accounts at zero cost) will do much of anything. All someone has to do is to just make a new account to monitor your activity. Or, hell, Reddit and a ton of Threadiverse instances provide anonymous access. Not to mention that on the Threadiverse, anyone who sets up an instance can see all the data being exchanged anyway.
In practice, if your concern is your activity being monitored, then you’re going to have to use a whitelisting-based system. Like, the Fediverse would need to have something like invite-only communities, and the whole protocol would have to be changed in a major way.
Some stalkers might notice and circumvent, but most won’t because in their mind they aren’t doing anything wrong so why would they check if they got blocked. But apparently if the solution is not perfect it’s not worth doing anything to deter it seems.
How can you have a stalker on an anonymous internet account? Or do you mean like a person who comments on your public Internet posts?
My accounts are not anonymous. Not even my Lemmy account is, for example my husband is also a follower of my account here because I want to interact with people I know about the things I see.
But you never know how things turn out with people. You give someone you think is a friend your name on a social platform because you think you could share a meme once in a while, and it turns out they are mentally ill and screenshot all your posts, print them out and decorate their house with them. Creepy af. You make a comment about how some product looks cool and they send it to you in the mail and expect you to be grateful for it even when you don’t want it from them and never asked for it. You make one comment that can be vaguely interpreted as being unhappy with your partner like “lol my husband bought cucumbers instead of zucchini” and he will bombard him about how he is about to get dumped for being stupid and how he will replace him. Absolutely mental. But turns out if you block these kinds of people, they just forget you exist. They don’t even bother checking if they are blocked because in their head they never did anything wrong so why would they be.
Out of sight out of mind. 😊
Well yes, that’s what I tell my kids, but they could write anything and I couldn’t check it…
Ahh, I see the problem.
Blocking here is just ignoring people you don’t agree with, what you’re looking for is a way to punish them for not agreeing.
Got me in the first half, but no, I want them to leave me alone. That’s what ignore should be all about.
deleted by creator
There’s no block system on the whole of the internet that prevents that. Even if they couldn’t reply to your comments, they could reply to anyone else’s, or post a top-level comment, or make their own post entirely. What do you propose? Don’t let them even type your name?
I think what OP is wanting is “block this person from seeing/commenting on my posts” in addition to “block me from seeing this person’s posts.”
This is certainly possible (and exists) on many platforms, but is much more difficult on a federated platform. It becomes actually impossible if your posts are accessible to the unauthenticated public.
N.B. I’ll withhold judgment on whether full-stack blocking is beneficial, but there have been cases where this style of blocking is used to amplify echo chambers (e.g. Reddit). There is no perfect system besides simply staying the fuck off social media.
If I never see it, I’ll never care.
No, there’s enough nonsense going on, too many idiots and even more bots, it’s not punishment, there’s no way to have a conversation with people who don’t engage in any way that is productive, it’s a waste of my time
Because it would allow people to push narratives and not get called out if they block everyone against them.
Imagine a civil transphobe pushing some narrative that flies below the radar of whatever mods are moderating that comm. If they block all the trans users they cannot get called out on their stuff anymore.
I think there was some discourse on this on black mastodon?
I’m more annoyed by losing the “Block Community” button when a sub’s admin blocks me.
Agreed. It’s a flaw in the system
Thank you.
it was kinda same with reddit too. people just get around it by using another account and just harrass you again, or they try to brigade you and report.
Because the alternative is easily abused, see all the issues Reddit has with this type of block mechanism.
The core of the problem as I see it is, this gives every user limited moderation powers in every sub, the extent of that power is determined mainly just by how much they post and comment (blocked users can’t comment under their posts, and can’t reply to any comment in a chain started by the blocker), and the extent to which it is happening is invisible to most users. People advocating for this seem to assume it will be used mostly defensively, to prevent harassment, but the feature has way more utility offensively, and it’s totally unaccountable. If there is something someone is saying (not even necessarily to you) that you don’t like for whatever reason, whether or not it’s against the rules and regardless of what anyone else thinks about it, you can partially silence them by blocking and then working to get engagement in the same spaces they comment in. Think about if this was implemented on Lemmy, lots of communities have only one or a few people making all the posts, if one or more of them blocked you that’s almost the same as a ban. It doesn’t make it better that the people making those posts are often also moderators, because it would be a way to pseudo ban people without it showing up in the mod log.
Moderation of online discussion spaces should be transparent and accountable, it shouldn’t be a covert arms race between users.
The current system doesn’t stop that version of abuse though it just means it can only happen in the opposite direction. The abuse you’re implying still occurs.
Seems to me you shouldn’t be able to reply directly but you should be able to see the comments that way you could reply elsewhere in the thread if you want. Or the other people in the comment chain even.
I do think it would be less bad if it only prevented direct comment replies, and not replies to top level posts or replies to other comments by other people further down the thread.
I don’t understand what you mean by it still occurs in the other direction though. Nobody can prevent people from commenting except moderators and admins, which is how it should be. Mute style blocking isn’t moderation because it doesn’t affect anyone’s ability to comment, it’s effectively the same as a client level filter.
Well think about it, you say it’s abuse because someone can use blocking to change how conversations work right? They can make replies the other person can’t respond. That same thing can still happen. Yeah harass someone to the point they block you and then you continue to harass them by making replies that they can’t see and changing how the conversation of this forum works. It’s the exact same thing. Just opposite direction.
I’ve blocked a bunch of people, who may be replying to me with harassing comments, but that isn’t influencing what I do. It might influence the overall conversation, and that could be a problem, but I think the way that problem is dealt with should be public, because the problem is public, it’s not something that’s exclusively my problem. I don’t think I should have the authority to act to police any arbitrary community like that, especially without anyone being able to know that I’m doing it.
yea it usually ends with the troll commenting"for your information it spelled like this or its discussed this way" followed with insulting comment" go back and learn how to do this or that before commmenting" i immediately block grammar nazis too.
