5 ms·

I think it should be reciprocal, like in the real world. If someone blocks a provider, a provider should be allowed to block back. Maybe with some automatism. S

by okr 2y ago

I think it should be reciprocal, like in the real world. If someone blocks a provider, a provider should be allowed to block back. Maybe with some automatism. So it is fair and each party has information about what is going on. Or using real guns instead of these children games in the sandbox.

blueflow 2y ago
The internet is not like twitter - a block is practically bidirectional.
ninkendo 2y ago
So if I run a web server at home and I’m constantly attacked by AWS IPs, I shouldn’t be able to block them without myself being unable to access the lion’s share of the web hosted on AWS? Doesn’t that seem sort of extreme?
- icedchai 2y ago
  I run a web server at home, and have for decades. The constant scans is something you realize is "normal" and just ignore.
chipdart 2y ago
> I think it should be reciprocal, like in the real world. If someone blocks a provider, a provider should be allowed to block back. Maybe with some automatism. So it is fair and each party has information about what is going on. Or using real guns instead of these children games in the sandbox. I don't think your take makes any sense whatsoever. Beyond the puerile "I'll block you too", what exactly do you hope to achieve with this nonsense?
- immibis 2y ago
  Fewer blocks.
  - chipdart 2y ago
    Can you elaborate? It sounds like puerile specious reasoning at best.
    - immibis 2y ago
      If blocking someone works in both directions, you won't block half the internet based on spurious reasoning, because you'll be blocked from half the internet based on your own spurious reasoning. You'll carefully consider who to block.
      - okr 2y ago
        Yeah, exactly, thank you.