Mockingbear wrote:
I know that that picture is public under the same user name, Sherlock. Other stuff is decidedly not. I want something *better* than Fet, because Fet sucks with regards to protecting users from all kinds of abuse. But thanks for making my point.
I'm really not sure what 'protecting users from all kinds of abuse' means to you. Here's what it looks like to MURICA! right now:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/how-congress-censored-internet (Hint: It's not a good thing.)
Also, please define 'have a good grip on privacy'. What are your expectations on privacy online, and why do you think that the solution lies in having site admins bubble wrap things and 'protect' people rather than personal responsibility? Cite specific examples of site wide policies you'd like to see, and why you think they will achieve that goal. How do you think 'protecting users from all kinds of abuse' can be realistically achieved through hiding things from public view?
I have argued, and continue that radical openness and transparency are the best solutions against abuse. Right now, both The Cage and Fet support only two options for problematic users, blocking and reporting. Neither is open or transparent. The number of blocked users, the nature of their offenses, and the actions taken against them are unknown. Abusers are 4 bucks a month and a VPN away from simply repeating the behavior, and new users have no clue that person is back in the fold.
To further frustrate things, both Fet and Cage have policies against publicly naming an abuser or confronting them in any open and transparent manner. The best one can do is report and hope. This only creates a strong 'bystander effect' (someone else must have reported them, I'm sure.. none of my business...) , and abuse victims seldom report publically. More stigma. There's a reason 'shit lists' are a thing.