2 ms·

Indeed, it's not sufficient. I don't think people want a "eh, it's almost good enough most of the time" blocking feature. They don't want their block list to be

Indeed, it's not sufficient. I don't think people want a "eh, it's almost good enough most of the time" blocking feature. They don't want their block list to be public at all (this is a dealbreaker already) and they don't want other people ever to see blocked people's replies dangling off the bottom of their posts. The client-side mute feature prevents 100% of those posts from appearing to the one client, while keeping the list private. The block feature then, necessarily, must be about other people not seeing the replies to your posts. Otherwise, all you need is the easy client-side mute feature. And indeed, I think the block feature is broken enough that client-side mute is the only thing they can reasonably do. There WILL be people defeating the block for anyone who can see it and screenshotting it for anyone who can't. As an obvious example, imagine what would happen if Donald Trump were on Bluesky. He will receive both blocked replies AND people will leak his block list.

LegionMammal978 3y ago
> and they don't want other people ever to see blocked people's replies dangling off the bottom of their posts. What I'm saying is, "ever" is an impossible criterion, for any typical blocking implementation on any online service. Unless the whole stack is DRM'd all the way down, someone could always write up a browser extension or equivalent that lets blocked people overlay the official messages with their own messages, sourced from a separate host. (I'm picturing something like a third-party version of Twitter's Birdwatch.) Indeed, if we allow screenshotting, then even going that far would be unnecessary: people could just screenshot (e.g.) Trump's messages on his own social media site where he quotes the original message, and that screenshot could be spread juat as far as a screenshot from a custom Bluesky client. Generally, I just don't see how it makes that much of a difference if these overlaid messages are transmitted via Bluesky's network instead of a separate network. Are you saying that Bluesky-hosted blocked messages are so much more compelling a mechanism than third-party-hosted blocked messages that this becomes substantially more problematic? (That does not seem clear at all to me a priori; don't people wanting to transmit and receive blocked messages have to put in active effort either way?) Or are you suggesting that all existing block features are broken in this way, and they're acceptable only if they're private?

LegionMammal978 3y ago

> and they don't want other people ever to see blocked people's replies dangling off the bottom of their posts. What I'm saying is, "ever" is an impossible criterion, for any typical blocking implementation on any online service. Unless the whole stack is DRM'd all the way down, someone could always write up a browser extension or equivalent that lets blocked people overlay the official messages with their own messages, sourced from a separate host. (I'm picturing something like a third-party version of Twitter's Birdwatch.) Indeed, if we allow screenshotting, then even going that far would be unnecessary: people could just screenshot (e.g.) Trump's messages on his own social media site where he quotes the original message, and that screenshot could be spread juat as far as a screenshot from a custom Bluesky client. Generally, I just don't see how it makes that much of a difference if these overlaid messages are transmitted via Bluesky's network instead of a separate network. Are you saying that Bluesky-hosted blocked messages are so much more compelling a mechanism than third-party-hosted blocked messages that this becomes substantially more problematic? (That does not seem clear at all to me a priori; don't people wanting to transmit and receive blocked messages have to put in active effort either way?) Or are you suggesting that all existing block features are broken in this way, and they're acceptable only if they're private?