I agree with @fffffffff and while I agree that it is a bummer that misidentification will stand, at some level I personally believe that people feeling comfortable and respected in online engagements is important to protect, and blocking accomplishes that. While there are certainly some things on the margin that might go unidentified or might be stuck incorrectly ID’d, I personally think that is an ok cost. I think some of this discussion comes down to values like that, and all large-scale online groups have to draw that line somewhere and I personally think this is a tolerable level of data loss to protect user needs.
We also don’t know why these users blocked you, and I think that is appropriate. But regardless, it’s a good reminder to not assume we know what people’s lives are like on or off of the internet and it’s always good to be kind and assume good intentions – even for measures like blocking.
To my knowledge I’ve never been blocked and I’ve never had to block someone. So I’m just curious, has anyone on here had to block someone (I understand that blocking might be for very personal reasons so not looking for explanations, just curious)? Reason I ask, another rather controversial feature on the site is Opting out of community ID, unpopular, but some of us can point out times that it proved to be a useful tool. But in discussing blocking, all of the reason given are hypothetical.
I blocked someone once, and to be honest, I’d be rather annoyed at not being able to do that.
I used to do a lot of broad IDing on unidentified observations, which brought me into contact with new users who probably don’t know it’s helpful to have a general ID, so I would sometimes throw in the “boilerplate” comment about it. There was this user who got upset about me giving a broad ID and was quite rude about it, so I reported and blocked them to avoid having to run into any more of their observations in the future.
Not on this particular site but in the interest of blocking examples: I blocked another user on that site because he was repeatedly asking via messages and comments on my posts if I would consider going on a date with him. I’ve blocked a user before who was trying to figure out my address to send me insect specimens that I was not comfortable receiving. Sometimes blocking has nothing to do with behavior on the site, I have blocked users online on another citizen science platform because he was quite rude a friend and I at a scientific conference.
My background is in taxonomy and museum curation… so I come at this from a different perspective than most users of this site. For me, a single misidentified observation in an otherwise well-curated group diminishes the whole. I appreciate that not everyone is invested to such a degree, but the utility of this site and the biogeographic data therein is lessened when errors are allowed to exist.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting that users shouldn’t be blockable… but there needs to be restraint and oversight with this process. I see several comments that seem to conflate iNaturalist with other social media sites. My point in this discussion is that a single user’s decision to block another user can have ramifications that affect how everyone else interacts with this site, in the form of observations that go unvetted.
This was actually the main reason we instituted blocking: concerns about potential harassment or stalking that originated from outside of iNat, based on requests we received. And I don’t think it’s our business to ask people about their personal and possibly traumatic experiences outside of iNat.
Second: iNat is a huge, diverse community and we may not all get along for all kinds of reasons, even after trying to do so. And some of those reasons for not getting along may not be suspendable violations of the Community Guidelines - we all have our own tolerances. These can and have led to flare-ups that were probably unnecessary if one or both users blocked each other.
Thus, we implemented a blocking mechanism. This allows you to block other users you can’t get along with or feel threatened by. Yes, it provides room for misuse but again it’s pretty limited. It’s simply not possible for iNaturalist staff to vet and arbitrate every request for blocking. And again, I don’t think it’s fair for someone to have to peition iNaturalist staff to block someone by telling us that this person stalked them or harrassed them outside of iNaturalist. There’s also no way for us to vet that.
So, we’ve made this compromise: a three block limit. Like all compromises it’s not perfect but we think it provides a mechanism that helps people feel safe and empowered, and allows them to remove themselves from potential conflicts without being able to do so at a large scale.
As this forum is for having constructive discussions, I think it’s worth discussing potential possible improvements, like maybe emailing a user three months after they blocked someone and asking them if they still wanted to block them. Oftentimes I suspect blocking is motivated by a temporary flare up that eventually cools, but people forget they blocked that other user.
As you mentioned in your post, I investigated the other instance you brought up. It seemed clear that it was a misuse of blocking, and I did message that user, which resolved the situation. So “absolutely no oversight” is not an accurate statement.
I totally understand the ways that blocking can be abused, but I think it’s very, very important that users’ ability to block others without having to justify themselves to an outside committee is protected. If someone who has been known to harass me on multiple platforms (as I unfortunately have experienced) decides to try to reach me through iNaturalist, I absolutely do not want to have to contact administrators, unload my personal baggage, try to explain that even an innocuous-seeming message on iNaturalist is crossing boundaries I’ve explicitly stated off-site, and run the risk of being deemed not problematic enough to be worthy of allowing me a block if I don’t divulge enough personal information as evidence and the person otherwise acts cordial around the site.
Tiwane’s post showed up just as I finished writing mine, and I’m glad to see a staff member also feels that would be a breach of privacy and autonomy to require that of users.
To rephrase, there is limited recourse for a user to appeal a block. From my limited experience, unless a clear pattern of misuse is present on the part of the blocker, it seems the mods are unlikely to revert the decision or to make any attempt to contact the blocker to ascertain the situation.
That is something that needs improvement. Again, iNaturalist is not like other social media. Blocking someone on facebook or twitter doesn’t affect anyone else’s use of the site. But blocking a user on iNaturalist does, and it potentially affects the entire scientific community, which increasingly relies on the data stored here. Data that I have directly curated here has made it into peer-reviewed publications.
I’ll also add that there’s no notification of being blocked, which I suppose is both good and bad. In my case, I just happened to stumble upon the blocked observations via a certain set of search parameters, but it would have been very easy to miss those since they are otherwise completely hidden to me whilst I’m logged in. But I can appreciate that a notification would be something a blocker might not want when it stems from harassment. I don’t have an easy solution to recommend.
I find “blocking” just infantile and childish. If someone bothers you, you just dont have to answer this person.
Sooner or late this person will get tired distorbing you!. As an advocate of free speech I take the position: If you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!
Blocking in no way limits free speech. Everyone has the right to not interact with certain people if they choose. In a similar manner, you have free speech on the street, but I am not required to stand there and listen. In other words, blocking is “getting out of the kitchen to avoid the heat”. They are not blocking that person from the rest of iNat, just from their observations.
What would hinder the person in your scenario from just creating 2 or 3 more accounts to go on?
I can see how the blocking function might be usefull for some persons, even if I think it might give you a false sense of security.
But I don´t get why blocking also prevents the blocked person from IDing your observations. Why not just block those persons from messaging (private and on the observation) but allow them to ID?
That would allow the “blocker” to get rid of direct interaction without ripping the “blocked” IDers (maybe especially valueable like in this case) of their interest of IDing.
(!) Sockpuppet accounts. A sockpuppet account is an additional account set up to evade suspension, circumvent restrictions in functionality, or other forms of bad behavior
and so would become clear rules violation and thus reasonable for admins to get involved.
Additionally, having to go through an appeals process to the admin for the first block would also not stop them from doing what you’re saying, it would only make the burden on me much higher to assert the first boundary.
Mine too. And after joining iNaturalist, I soon learned that the platform is many things to many people, and trying to treat it as a museum collection in need of curation can only lead to frustration. There is much valuable data here, and I contribute to its growth and curation as much as possible. But the site is primarily a social media site for naturalists and to better connect people with the larger natural world. For a lot of users, it’s also a personal field notebook. Those are valuable things too, and they don’t diminish the value of the data generated (much of which indeed would not exist without those other motivations).
Again, me too. But like all data sources, I don’t expect them to be perfect, and I vet every data point to the best of my ability first (as I’m sure you do also). Not all will end up being usable despite my best curation efforts. I would quickly leave the site in frustration if I started taking personally the misidentifications or other errors I encounter in the data here - they are an inevitable part of the noise in data generated by a community science site like this.
I am an advocate of free speech too. Just keep in mind that iNaturalist and this forum, as privately funded and operated sites, are not operated as platforms for free speech. They have the right to set whatever limits they choose on behavior here, in the best interests of their goals for operating the sites.
My free speech applies to my own obs. But I am not free to say whatever I like on YOUR obs, there your house rules are the valid ones. (All bound within iNat’s rules here)
This certainly seems to be a tough one and I can’t think of a perfect solution. Having never attempted to block anyone I don’t know how it works, but is there a pop-up message given to the blocker to the effect of ‘these are the reasons why we have a blocking mechanism on iNat, you can only block three people, if you are blocking this individual for some other reason (such as blah etc) please refrain.’ ? Perhaps with a link to alternatives to blocking in inappropriate situations (e.g. opt out of CID etc.)
No but there is a massive, unmissable wall of text directly below the Block button describing how it should be used. Go to you Account Settings/Relationships menu to see.