Should blocking a user still allow them to vote on your posts? I’d rather have nothing to do with particular users, and it seems that they continue to show up in the activity for every single post I make around kbin.

  • bridge_too_close@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    7 months ago

    If you’re a bad actor, you could block anyone who downvotes your bad takes or whatever garbage you’re posting, and over time, you could block most active users (or at least the ones who disagree with you) until your posts aren’t downvoted into oblivion. I suppose by then, your total rep would be pretty pretty low and it would probably be easier to just make a new account.

    I’m not sure how viable this would be, just a thought.

    • wagesj45@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      But if the bad actor blocks everyone, they are putting themselves into a bubble where no one will see their garbage takes.

      • bridge_too_close@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Perhaps, or they’ll at least remain visible to the casual users and lurkers. They would have the most influence over people who wouldn’t actively downvote them, anyways. FWIW, I think there should be some measure taken to mitigate downvote stalking, but there’s always one shithead who takes things too seriously and has to ruin things for everyone else.

    • HarkMahlberg@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      This was a concern raised when Reddit updated the way blocking worked to make posts mutually invisible, between the blocked and the blocker. Some sort of scam had a cadre of dedicated users calling them out everywhere they went on Reddit. When blocking became mutual, i.e. the anti-scammers could no longer see the scammers’ posts, it was believed the scammers would have a way easier time finding Marks.