4 ms·
"where it is up to the user whom they block" does not imply that you have to manually select who to block, rather it could as well mean that you are free to sel
by dependenttypes 6y ago
"where it is up to the user whom they block" does not imply that you have to manually select who to block, rather it could as well mean that you are free to select block-lists (with the ability to fork them if you so wish) of your own choice rather than have the admin of your network force them on you.
- phatfish 6y agoThis changes nothing, one blocklist will get a lot of users, end up as a "recommended" setting, then all those hurt that their bigoted views aren't more popular will moaning about "free speech" again. I'm happy let those who want to run a community that has similar values to mine block obnoxious content for me. Far better that than Facebook or Google being the sole arbiters.
- dependenttypes 6y ago> This changes nothing The change is that it empowers the users. > one blocklist will get a lot of users, end up as a "recommended" setting This is fine as long as the users select said list out of their own will. > then all those hurt that their bigoted views aren't more popular will moaning about "free speech" again. Have you considered the possibility that a lot of non-bigoted views are currently blocked due to trigger-happy admins?
- vertex-four 6y ago> Have you considered the possibility that a lot of non-bigoted views are currently blocked due to trigger-happy admins? Exactly who is on Gab who I want to listen to? If they're not a bigot and not ok with bigotry, why are they on there?
- dependenttypes 6y agoI am not talking about Gab. I am talking about the other instances that were silenced in their crusade.