A community for leaders on the Imzy platform.
Who is talking about the block feature?
Wow. I was so hoping that what we had here was the ultimate showdown to keep creepers away because after all we are all such cool people. Why did we find that this was necessary? I have been in communities where this was "demanded" by people that are the worst offenders of common sense and dignity on the internet. Gosh. I want my complaint lodged about this feature -- it just sets the tone for the "same old, internet, thing." Sincerely, The Quiet Chef




I replied to you over here, but since you posted in two places:
Yes. Mad respect for making the features; just, was hoping we had more time in Shangri-La. ~The Quiet Chef
I don't really understand your point. Sometimes, people rub you the wrong way, and you want them to just "go away" without actually kicking them off, in order to keep your personal experience positive. So... block features.
I haven't wanted to block anyone on Imzy myself, but I'm in pretty low friction, high squee communities. I've certainly blocked people on platforms like Facebook to keep myself wasting time on pointless arguments. How does the feature hurt anyone?
So... You don't like the feature? I just made my first community and only have, like, 5 people. But, I see it as a "better have and not need than need and not have" sort of thing...
I am confused about what this post means! :D
And crawling, on the planet's face.
Some insects, called the human race.
Lost in time, and lost in space...
...And meaning.
I might want to block people who aren't objectively "creepers" or broke the rules, but just bother me. I like this function for that. But if you don't see the point of that, you don't need to use the block function - and if you see someone breaking rules you can still report them.
Okaaaay. So I might have a really different perspective but I actually like this because it is one of those things that when you need it you are glad it is there. In my case I had some real life problems with stalking and harassment. They would find out what site I use/my username and start harassing me online. Eventually I did have to get real life authorities involved but in the case of online areas I was so glad I could just block that person from contacting me.
Like I said, extreme example. People's reasons for blocking someone can vary.
I don't have the same experience but this is one of the reasons why I support a block feature too.
I totally get where you're coming from. And although my thoughts on the matter may differ I do appreciate you sharing with the group... Food for thought and all!
I think at most I'll use it as damage control for my feed when someone is spamming or something before community leaders or staff can put a end to it. Haha.
But then I am a big proponent of folks being able to censor their own existence to a degree. Leading large general interest communities makes me privy to a lot of head butting and shenanigans. The individuals are usually well meaning and often will get along just fine with the bulk of the group but for some reason will just rub each other the wrong way. So if they can effectively ignore each other but continue participating with the group as a whole. The other application I could see is let's say personA and personB are both members of a specific community where they share very openly and personB often shares experiences that personA finds disturbing, both are following community guidelines but rather than asking personB to censor their posts and comments personA will just mute them so that they don't get exposed to content that they don't feel up to dealing with at the time.
Personally I can get behind such a feature.
I appreciate this perspective. However, I wonder if there could be a feature to mute topics or keywords rather than people? For example, if someone is phobic of spiders, and they joined a nature enthusiast group, wouldn't it maybe be easier to mute all "spider" posts rather than mute a person entirely just because they talk about spiders a lot?
I think that might be a good feature request!
Awesome! Now I need to figure out how to make a feature request.
Post your idea in the /feedback community there are tags for feature request there!
Thank you ^_^
Yes I love this, and this is an explanation of why. Sometimes someone who's face I can't stand has mutual friends with me, or similar interests. Blocking them means we can both continue to participate and interact without putting people who like us both in an awkward situation. This is extra nice for the personal blog communities that some people are trying.
Totally.
Love this feature as it helps us hit the ignore button on people we need too so we can continue on being happy people :)
If there is no need for the feature, great, but it's not hurting anything being there. If it IS needed, I'm glad it's there. You almost make it sound like putting the feature there automatically invites all the internet trolls in, but that isn't sound cause/effect reasoning.
I will second what most are saying but also say that I get about the atmosphere and stuff, I run some servers for sandbox games but don't have any plugins to lock chests, doors, etc. That's because I want the atmosphere to feel trusting.
But I also think these features are more important, if someone is just being annoying but not breaking rules or policy, I want to be able to not see that.
People are going to dislike each other. That's simple fact, true in any community. Constantly seeing people/content you dislike in your community spaces leads to frustration building into anger. Every time the person goes, "Oh, this again" and has to scroll past it, they get more annoyed. Eventually, they're in a bad mood, had a bad day, or you just piled on the last straw, and they explode. Sometimes they don't even wait that long. And sometimes they're subtle, catty, and snipe at you for months or years.
Blocking is an alternative outlet to those feelings that can be disruptive to a community. Users block, feel relieved, and enjoy the community space more. They feel they don't have to police the community to their tastes by telling others what to do, since they have a lower-friction alternative.
I know it can sting to be blocked. Sometimes you do figure it out. On tumblr, you can't follow them or even reblog their content. What it means is very clear: that person doesn't like you. Whether the reason is good, petty, or downright arbitrary, they don't like you, and that's that. But if they couldn't block you, they still wouldn't like you. Yeah, it hurts to realize someone out there can't stand you. But once you accept that that is what it is, you realize they also opted to not interact with you, and that's good, because the only thing worse than realizing someone hates you is interacting with someone who hates you.
I have to wonder if you have some kind of self-esteem problem, if you want people who hate you to have to talk to you anyway. I say that because realizing that someone who dislikes you chose not to talk to you is less stressful if you assume most people don't dislike you. If you assume disliking you is the default state, it becomes very stressful. It's sad to feel like the only interaction you could get is from people who would block you if they could because they don't want to talk to you at all.
Can it turn into petty high school politics? Sure, though almost anything can. But if someone is really that immature and nasty, do you want to be friends with them anyway? Blocking is great, a bunch of people you don't get along with opt out of interactions with you, leaving you with the people you do get along with.
Honestly, I think you have a good point Quiet Chef. I think block and mute features foster cliquishness and stringent social rules (beyond Imzy's already-enforced policies regarding bans that are against harassment and spam) rather than making people's experiences better. It is a tool for exclusion and ostratization only, given that Imzy already has clear policies in place regarding serious harm.
I think this might lead to some "you can't sit with us" kind of bullying.
But why should someone demand the right to sit with you regardless of whether their behaviour causes you discomfort and ruins your fun? You should have the right to get someone out of your personal space.
Not if they're not doing anything wrong.
Like I said, Imzy's track record regarding harassment, stalking, breaking community rules, etc, is excellent. If they're not doing any one those things...what gives you the right to demand that they not sit with you?
Excluding people who are harassing, etc, is necessary. But excluding people just because you feel like it? That's bullying, or at the very least it can lead to bullying. Social isolation can be more painful and scarring than even verbal abuse. I don't think that's something that should happen here on Imzy, you know?
"What gives you the right to demand they not sit with you" - first off, this isn't the dramatic speech this sounds like, they don't get notified they've been blocked. And second...people get to set boundaries. They don't need to give a reason for their boundaries, either. If someone grates on my nerves or their screen name triggers me or I just don't feel like it, I don't have to interact with them to be polite.
I think this function might actually lead to less reports for "they were saying something annoying" (which isn't really a bannable offense in many comms), which means that less people are excluded from comms.
Um, yes, I do get to not sit with people because they get on my nerves. They don't have to have done anything bad enough to ban them for me not to want to spend time with them. And I don't owe them my time.
They're not being "excluded" from communities, or driven out, I just personally choose not to see them or have them interact with me. That's not bullying. That's choosing where I spend my emotional and intellectual resources.
This isn't grade school. No one is being forced to be here. No one has the right to demand online attention from anyone else.
Rather than arguing that blocking someone is bullying, why not ask yourself if forcing yourself on someone who doesn't want you around is bullying? Both are a bit OTT, but the second less than the first.
"This isn't grade school" Okay. So why do so many people have a grade school mentality?
I'm just surprised that we, as adults, still, today, have debates defending our right to be exclusive. Just because you put it in marketable terminology ("That's choosing where I spend my emotional and intellectual resources") doesn't mean that one is suddenly not responsible for the social and emotional consequences of that choice.
I don't know you personally, but I know many, many people in my real life who have been willfully ignored, not spoken to, and Not Chosen simply because they were, you know, fat, or disabled, or had aspergers, or liked anime too much or dressed unfashionably or were poor or were a minority or were "weird" and could never figure out what the right thing to like or say is.
If a fat girl sits at a table with a bunch of skinny girls, hoping they'll give her a chance because maybe they have interests in common, and they all refuse to make eye contact and ignore her...SHE's the bully? She's "forcing" herself on them?
If you choose to withold your "intellectual and emotional resources" from the people who are "unlikable" by your arbitrary standard, sure, I guess technically that's your right. But I'm concerned that this enables exercise of this "right" as standard procedure, without regard to the increased feelings of isolation and loneliness on part of the person being muted and blocked.
(And just because someone's not notified, do you really think they won't notice if people suddenly stop responding to them or they get a 404 page?)
I think you are carrying irrelevant concerns from high school over too much, to be absolutely frank. I was the disabled fat girl who loved anime at high school. That doesn't mean I can't choose to ignore a mansplainer online.
The sitting together metaphor was strained at best, and I think it's about snapped. All people know about you on Imzy is how you choose to behave.
As for "unlikeable by our arbitrary standards"--well, I'm about to mute someone for being an Islamophobe who is calling people idiots and screeching conspiracy theories. I don't think making this annoyance go away is bullying, and you'll have difficulty convincing me it is. They can keep screaming to the rest of the internet if they like; I have no obligation to read their rants.
Whether it's arbitrary or not isn't actually my concern. They're an annoyance, so I choose to direct my attention elsewhere rather than cater to them, and I will have more fun this way, without asking that they be reprimanded or banned (my other options).
People can also stop responding without muting or blocking, so I'm not sure what your point is--that we should be forced to keep responding to conversations we're tired of? If you get tired of this one, go ahead and mute, or block, just ignore. It truly won't hurt me.
But I'm not obligated to talk to everyone. You're making it sound as if I'm doing something wrong if I'm part of a comm and don't reply to someone's comment. (Which is what it looks like to someone I've muted or blocked - they're not notified that I did that after all.) If someone's really so unpleasant that most people block them, they'll think that this comm is really empty of activity, wow. That would be sad for them, sure! But that still doesn't make ity responsibility to keep interacting with them if I don't want to. I'm here for fun.
The only exception I can think of are comm leaders - I can't very well mute or block someone and still effectively mod their posts or reports.
Okay, actually, I agree with part of what you're saying. Absolutely, nobody has to reply to every (or any) post by someone in a group. That makes sense.
I just wonder if there's a way to balance the two needs. After all, the social aspect of social media sites do provide some people's main source of social interaction and contact; I feel like maintaining an atmosphere of acceptance of (reasonable) difference is important in inclusive social situations.
Maybe there are ways to offset the whole cliquish attitude that could be created by easy muting and blocking by cultivating an encouraging atmosphere in other ways?
Online attention isn't a "need", though. This is starting to make me think of people who post to forums or social media and half an hour later post "No answers? I guess everyone hates me and I should just go away!"
People will respond if they want to, and not otherwise. It's the nature of things online.
And who defines "reasonable" difference, anyway?
Maybe our experiences of social media and social groups have been too different for us to agree. To me, social validation really is a need.
Now, it's not a need that's a problem for me, because it can be easily filled just from my interaction in my own home, or at work. But that hasn't always been the case in the past.
I guess it is your right to dismiss that need in your interactions with people? And just say, you know, people should suck it up if they get rejected, or shouldn't reach out for connection in the way that you describe, by worrying aloud that people hate them.
But just because you are dismissive of that need doesn't mean that the need is not very real and intense for many people, and it is a need that I, for one, would like to keep in mind when creating social spaces.
I think you are a very nice person who cares about the feelings of others.
But I think our experiences of online spaces may, yes, have been very different. For me, the people demanding validation from me have been people who have stressed me out in one way or another. Often they have been sexist, racist, homophobic or Islamophobic, have shown no respect for my boundaries and time, or sent me into a spiralling circle of argument, anger and misery.
I think the right to step away from that is an important right. Perhaps especially important for women and minorities, who are disproportionately subject to being lectured, explained away or bullied, but important for everyone.
Inclusiveness in a comm is about being welcoming, fostering kind and respectful speech, and encouraging people to treat others well, but there still needs to be a method people can use to keep their own experiences positive and exercise self care. I believe the ability to block and mute enables this self care.
I also wonder if you've ever had the experience that just seeing someone's username when they're saying something innocuous makes you feel upset and furious because of prior interactions, and you find yourself hunting for things to disagree with them about...
Blocking and muting are better for everyone involved in that case!
It also helps me to avoid my own pit of temptation, that of arguing with unpleasant idiots for that little stab of, yes, validation as the likes build up, telling me I've made points, until my day has become completely unproductive. It helps my self control.
(I get my news from Facebook feeds, can you tell? 😉 )
You know, I can see that.
Perhaps I am more sensitive to the frustration of being excluded because I've been there irl, and, to a lesser extent, online on forums. Just having that feeling like I worked up the courage to show up to the party or say something out loud in a "group" setting online, and then feeling like that didn't work at all and I must be a failure. And some of that has to do with me being disabled and queer, but honestly it also just has to do with my personality.
But I also haven't often needed to block people. I feel like I generally don't interact much with sexist / homophobic / otherwise bigoted people in the first place. And I guess I sort of hoped that, with Imzy, bigotry, hate speech, and harassment would be dealt with authoritatively.
I feel like each social media site has its' own level of seriousness regarding "following", so, for example, un-following a tumblr blog or a person on facebook doesn't seem to be a big deal, socially. But in other circumstances, like in fb groups or dA forums, rejection seems a bit more personal. So, I suppose it depends a bit on how that plays out here.
That makes sense too :)
Sometimes though, I'll be blunt, it won't even be about something that requires any kind of "authoritative" intervention. People butt heads for all kinds of silly reasons but it can still be really vexing to have to see that person.
For example I am a very casual video game player, and in a lot of the community, people see that as laziness, which is rude lmao. But if someone who is in a video game community I'm in is constantly putting down changes in a game to make them more accessible to casual players, and the players who benefit from those changes, after a while I won't want to see their bs. It's not bigotry or anything that would merit completely removing that person from the community, but if they're vocal enough with those opinions it might make ME want to leave. If I have an option to not see their comments well, I can stay, they can stay, since despite differing opinions we both have a right to be there.
I said it above, but quite a few people are trying using imzy communities like personal blogs where they post about their day and their lives and their friends comment on them. EVERYONE has those two friends who hate each other for whatever reason that has nothing to do with you. If the two friends who dislike each other just block each other, then the community owner won't be put in a situation that is uncomfortable or where they feel they have to choose between two people they like.
I think it's better to acknowledge that not everyone will always get along and plan accordingly than to pretend the community is going to be perfect and petty grudges will never be an issue.
If someone actually manages to spoil the Imzy experience for enough people to individually block them that they become "excluded and ostracized", then I think there is a common problem there, and it isn't the block feature.
If someone manages to technically stay inside the rules enough not to be banned, but has such a toxic effect on the community that the community can't be an enjoyable place with their presence, then they have to have been doing something really disruptive.
It seems unlikely to me, though. At most, it's just individuals deciding not to spend their time and attention on someone who pisses them off. As many creepers and mansplainers have had to learn, no one owes you attention.
That's a fair point; it probably is unlikely that many people (rather than a few individuals) would all block / mute the same person. Maybe I am overly concerned.
The thing is, it it becomes a matter of "you can't sit with us" there's nothing stopping anyone from setting up another, more inclusive table. Chances are if it is a matter of clique-ish snubbing the nicer table will actually outgrow the clique-y one. One of the things you realize after a while is that if people don't want you around, you're still not going to have fun even if they have no choice but to have to see you. Just because they can't block someone doesn't mean they can't just... not respond to them by just scrolling by, which if anything would make the snub more glaring.
And yeah, no one owes anyone their time or attention, at least not on a website like this where it's entirely optional and based on entertainment.
That's a good point too. Ideally, there is room for multiple groups on similar topics, so if one group develops some kind of snobbery, it's a lot easier to simply go to (or create) a new group than it is in physical space.