![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A Ban is Not a Block
Nov. 7th, 2023 02:05 pmSo, just an FYI to others that if you ban someone you used to give access to from commenting on your account here on Dreamwidth, it's probably a good idea to uncheck 'gives access' before doing so AND MAKE SURE TO PRESS THE 'save changes' button. Then double-triple-quadruple check this in multiple ways by navigating out and back to the page and clicking 'show banned users?' and seeing who you have checked 'gives access' to. Even in the best case scenario (which I have not been able to confirm), should you somehow unintentionally unban the person, they would immediately regain access to your access-list only posts. In the worst-case situation, this means they can still read your access-list only posts even when they're banned, they just can't comment on them. I always lean more towards assuming the worst-case situation, but if anyone can confirm that banning is also intended to prevent users from seeing access list only posts even if that's checked, or confirm that it's not intended to do that, I would find that information useful.
Today I just noticed a former friend I unfortunately had a falling-out with a while back and so banned here on Dreamwidth was still listed as on the access list to my blog when I clicked 'show banned users' in my circle. Of course I unchecked that box instantly and chose 'save changes'. I thought I had done that earlier but I guess not.
It's certainly not ideal for me but in my case, I'm not going to have too much emotional turmoil over that by itself. I limit what I put on social media, regardless of restriction level. Still, other people might want to be aware that regardless of whether banned users can still view access-only posts if you don't uncheck the 'gives access' box, that ban =/= block.
'Gives access' will always be imo better than 'followers only' or 'mutuals only' choices, but I think ban being different from the current conception of blocking can cause some problems when it interacts with these settings, especially given the expectations set by blocking. My understanding is that ban is more a 'read only' setting than the more 'restraining order' approach attempted by blocking. I think blocking is the better approach, even if it sometimes grants people a false sense of security, because it increases barriers for troublemakers.
Since I seem to recall unchecking those boxes way back when I did the original ban, my guess is that I didn't select the 'Save Changes' button before banning.
Today I just noticed a former friend I unfortunately had a falling-out with a while back and so banned here on Dreamwidth was still listed as on the access list to my blog when I clicked 'show banned users' in my circle. Of course I unchecked that box instantly and chose 'save changes'. I thought I had done that earlier but I guess not.
It's certainly not ideal for me but in my case, I'm not going to have too much emotional turmoil over that by itself. I limit what I put on social media, regardless of restriction level. Still, other people might want to be aware that regardless of whether banned users can still view access-only posts if you don't uncheck the 'gives access' box, that ban =/= block.
'Gives access' will always be imo better than 'followers only' or 'mutuals only' choices, but I think ban being different from the current conception of blocking can cause some problems when it interacts with these settings, especially given the expectations set by blocking. My understanding is that ban is more a 'read only' setting than the more 'restraining order' approach attempted by blocking. I think blocking is the better approach, even if it sometimes grants people a false sense of security, because it increases barriers for troublemakers.
Since I seem to recall unchecking those boxes way back when I did the original ban, my guess is that I didn't select the 'Save Changes' button before banning.
