@doug @jerry I'm going to stand up for the devs here...

Jerry Bell :verified_paw: :donor: :verified_dragon: :rebelverified:'s posts Post Back to profile

@doug @jerry I'm going to stand up for the devs here and say that they absolutely do factor in these things, just not always in the ways that are most apparent. There are a number of features that don't get added (at least as quickly as folks demand) specifically because of their impact on user privacy, safety, security, etc. (Quote toots, for example.)

There's a triad of engagement, safety, and accessibility that has to be factored into everything. Then how those features are maintained going forward.

Like 1 August at 14:32 | Wall-to-wall | Open on vmst.io

7 comments

Jerry Bell :verified_paw: :donor: :verified_dragon: :rebelverified:

@vmstan @doug Additionally, I am not sure what additional safety mechanisms are missing, to be honest. Perhaps making block lists more frictionless? Allowing admins to block certain words? (Which btw, would cause it's own set of backlash for flitering out legitimate use of some words)...

1 August at 14:35 | Open on infosec.exchange

Renaud Chaput

@jerry word-based filtering has many many issues. As server blocklists do. Before having tools that reinforce this, we want those tools to not be invisible to users and provide some auditing. Not doing so, in our experience, creates very bad experiences for users.
Add the fact that being a federated network makes most of the things much more difficult to implement properly.
@vmstan @doug

1 August at 14:46 | Open on oisaur.com

Renaud Chaput

@jerry and this is also why we introduced the severed relationship mechanism, as well as the (still needikg improvements) filtered notification system. Now that we have those, which allow more auditing and decision visibility, we will need to able to add more tools, like blocklist syncing.
@vmstan @doug

1 August at 14:51 | Open on oisaur.com

adamrice

@jerry @vmstan @doug Something that might help would be allowing individuals to subscribe to curated block lists, not just admins. Not sure how disruptive that would be to the fediverse.

1 August at 15:11 | Open on c.im

Doug

@jerry
I think there are a lot of marginalised people - users, mods and admins - who would have a lot to say about additional safety features, and would appreciate being consulted in design and testing before it's released.
@vmstan

1 August at 15:56 | Open on union.place

S Vermin Rose

@jerry As we all know, Trust and Safety is hard, and a challenge is that when it fails it hits some users far harder than others. The idea that it's unduly onerous on those users to block trolls is new to me - I'm not a domain expert. But I want to hear Black voices, so their problem is, to an extent, my problem. Could a mitigation be curated block lists? I have a foggy recollection of such a facility being available on a certain legacy microblogging platform.

1 August at 16:25 | Open on linuxrocks.online

Doug

@vmstan
I have utmost respect for the hard work if the devs, but I read the public roadmap and see barely any feature that relates to safety or accessibiliy.

I don't doubt it is going to be an aspect of some of the work, but read the original post of the thread, and where do we think anything is being actively worked or planned for that could alleviate the problems, for users or admins?

@jerry

1 August at 16:03 | Open on union.place