Blocking someone should remove their replies from your posts, this is the type of safety features we need in the Fediverse!

[tnhd@mastodon.social]

@kelson
According to you it might be no more than theory, but that might be due to a discrepancy in what's perceived proper moderation. As I said, *I* think moderation on .social is fine, as will most users of .social. (1/2)
@rimu @dansup

[tnhd@mastodon.social]

@kelson
I don't know what you, and those instances, think are bad actors, but I suspect that might include people that .social, being relatively liberal, deliberately doesn't disallow. Concerning the objectively bad actors, they might just tend to go to .social due to the absence of reason to go elsewhere. You can't blame the .social moderators for that. (2/2)
@rimu @dansup

[dalias@hachyderm.io]

@crse @dansup That's what muting is for. Blocking is to prevent them from contacting or driving contact to you from their audiences. For that purpose, you want old things severed too.

[foxyoreos@mastodon.social]

@tnhd @kelson @rimu @dansup

Good idea.

> Let's imagine I post a bunch of antivax nonsense (or fascism, etc) and then block everyone who debunks me. Their replies are deleted, only leaving those that agree with me.

Why wouldn't that also work for this scenario?

[foxyoreos@mastodon.social]

@tnhd @kelson @rimu @dansup

I'm supposed to simultaneously believe that server-level moderation is enough to remove abusive replies or misinformation coming from other instances.. but not enough to remove misinformation if it's not in a reply?

If somebody posts misinformation and disables replies, then report it, the same way you would with any other post. Easy.

[javascript@app.wafrn.net]

This is a very hard problem. And the risk of getting it wrong and having a lot of disinformation as a result is very big. This needs most cooperating software implementations to coordinate on blocking semanticis, like with GTS reply control.

In my opinion this is one of the hardest problems of fedi.

Imagine half of the responses you block still show in half of the instances that can see your post via federation. Some will see those blocked replies, some will not, and the more your post federates, the more inconsistent this will be. You have to account for this if you truly want to build this feature right.

[kelson@notes.kvibber.com]

@tnhd @rimu @dansup I'm not blaming the .social moderators. I'm saying that there should be something the average user can do if and when the .social (or other large instance) moderators drop the ball and leaves an abusive/spammy/whatever reply standing.

[benaveling@mastodon.world]

There is at least one GitHub request for this.
Eg https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/15631

@dansup

[fwaaron@social.coop]

@the_moep
I think you are ignoring the sense of space Mastodon gives for replies. It gives a sense that they are a part of a discussion within a digital space defined by the original post. The original poster should have some say over their sense of safety in the digital space of their own posts, and replies by blocked individuals should be disassociated from the post and not part of that digital space anymore. That's not destructive. It's not taking over another account or instance, it's taking control over your own account and the digital space Mastodon creates around it.

@alterelefant @dansup

[kelson@notes.kvibber.com]

@tnhd @rimu @dansup In short:

• I don't expect to be able to force-delete an abusive reply to one of my posts across the entire fediverse.
• I don't even expect to be able to prevent it from pointing back to my post.
• But I also don't expect to be obligated to continue pointing forward to it from mine.

[alterelefant@mastodontech.de]

@FWAaron
Agreed. Replies won't be removed but the reference between post and reply could / should be removed.
@the_moep @dansup

[tnhd@mastodon.social]

This post is deleted!