3 ms·

if a block should only be readable by the party that created it, then there is no reason for that information to be shared in the first place

• phoe-krk 3y ago
  Which sort of is my point. An option to share blocking information with another (trusted?) person should be possible, but as an explicit opt-in from the first party, with the third party not being able to intercept this in any meaningful way.
  • preseinger 3y ago
    but this is useless, isn't it? if blocking information is only available to a given third-party on an opt-on basis from the blocker, then what purpose does this information serve?
    • phoe-krk 3y ago
      "Hey, I know that you have an extensive personal blocklist, can I take a look at it and adapt it to my uses so that I don't start from scratch?" "Hey, I know that your server has an extensive personal blocklist, can I take a look at it and adapt it to my server so that I don't start from scratch?"
      • preseinger 3y ago
        i don't understand your point a "block list" is associated with a user, not a server
        • phoe-krk 3y ago
          Not all are. E.g. Fediverse defederation is a server-wide block, and not all Fediverse instances are making their defederation lists public.