> 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 cri

> 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?