I DO have my own website, and I've never had to block anyone.
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
3 points (61.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43962 readers
1491 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
What do you mean by blocking system?
That really depends on what we're talking about. For most hobbyist sites with community content creation and without DMs blocking isn't really necessary - you just ban bad users and hand approve new accounts. Moderating the environment so it's consistent for everyone is usually better than delegating that to individuals since new users would instantly be exposed to the most toxic version of your place.
I also tend to prefer opt in following (like Twitter but without any trending bullshit - just opt in to seeing interesting things without ever needing to block) vs. the more common "hit them with a firehose of content and let them block what they don't like" approach preferred by people who measure success by "engagement and ad revenue".
Oh, if your site supports non-public communication (i.e. DMs) you must support blocking because (and I understand you might not realize this if you're a dude) if you admit to having boobs on the internet you will receive unsolicited dick pics - it sucks but in large sites it's fucking inevitable... even if the admins try to stay on top of it one bad actor will DM like 500 people and it's deeply fucking abusive.
I'd have a "Mute" button, which stops someone's posts from being seen, and then a separate "Block" button, which would prevent any interaction.
Do you mean, blocking people from accessing it? Not every website needs that.
That said, on my own blog I just manually approve every comment. People I have already approved may post comments without waiting for moderation.
I wouldnโt enable comments. Youโll just get loads of bot spam.
On my sites, reviews are hidden by default until I approve them. Comments require a login and abusers are banned. Contact forms require an email address and submissions can be denied for various reasons (email domain, keywords, country, IP address etc). Most of these require some sort of (non-captcha) human check as well. On my adult site, anyone with an IP in a banned state gets forwarded to an alternative site. I use the same list as pornhub for this.
Could you provide a link to this list?
This artical has an accurate list:
https://www.pcmag.com/news/pornhub-blocked-texas-age-verification-vpn
Looks like Florida may be added soon too.
No blocking and static content.
If it HAS to have user-generated content, then 1) it's an app, not a website 2) have it untraceable to me from it to me 3) shove it in a jurisdiction that doesn't care. Still no blocking.