4 ms·

> On the one hand, there are clearly opportunities for abuse here. But given the opt-in nature of the labelers, this doesn't feel hugely different to someone cr

> On the one hand, there are clearly opportunities for abuse here. But given the opt-in nature of the labelers, this doesn't feel hugely different to someone creating a separate webpage full of information about Bluesky profiles. It requires very little imagination to see how this could be abused. Does the bluesky client also display labellers a user subscribes to? Then at least it would work in both directions and it would be obvious who is using a labeller to label people for distasteful reasons.

simonw 2y ago
I'm afraid you're going to need to spell it out to me. What are the opportunities for abuse here that aren't already present in the form of private WhatsApp groups or shared Google Docs with lists of accounts and abusive notes about them? I'm not saying there aren't any, but my imagination hasn't been able to come up with anything more than "it makes it slightly more convenient for co-ordinated harrassers to remember who they were planning on harrassing".
- efsavage 2y ago
  I think there's more than a quantitative difference between "slightly more convenient" and "with no effort". A centrally maintained list of labelled "enemies" that you get forever with a click is materially different than having to research people who gave you a reason to do so.
  - r00fus 2y ago
    Using your logic, a shared blocklist could also be a way to "harass" people.
- chomp 2y ago
  Is your thesis that since we live in a world of infinite possibilities, any device that makes harassment more efficient is not worth measured consideration for guard rails because there’s always a different and worse way to it?
  - simonw 2y ago
    The labels feature was originally designed to help PROTECT against harassment - people being harassed can use labels to share notes with each other about hostile accounts. Does that positive use of the feature outweight any potential negative uses?
layer8 2y ago
It doesn’t enable anything a browser extension couldn’t do as well.
r00fus 2y ago
> It requires very little imagination to see how this could be abused. Pray tell, how do you feel how labelers can be misused as opposed to an app like TweetDeck etc that simply leverages the features of the platform?

simonw 2y ago

I'm afraid you're going to need to spell it out to me. What are the opportunities for abuse here that aren't already present in the form of private WhatsApp groups or shared Google Docs with lists of accounts and abusive notes about them? I'm not saying there aren't any, but my imagination hasn't been able to come up with anything more than "it makes it slightly more convenient for co-ordinated harrassers to remember who they were planning on harrassing".

efsavage 2y ago
I think there's more than a quantitative difference between "slightly more convenient" and "with no effort". A centrally maintained list of labelled "enemies" that you get forever with a click is materially different than having to research people who gave you a reason to do so.
- r00fus 2y ago
  Using your logic, a shared blocklist could also be a way to "harass" people.
chomp 2y ago
Is your thesis that since we live in a world of infinite possibilities, any device that makes harassment more efficient is not worth measured consideration for guard rails because there’s always a different and worse way to it?
- simonw 2y ago
  The labels feature was originally designed to help PROTECT against harassment - people being harassed can use labels to share notes with each other about hostile accounts. Does that positive use of the feature outweight any potential negative uses?

layer8 2y ago

It doesn’t enable anything a browser extension couldn’t do as well.

r00fus 2y ago

> It requires very little imagination to see how this could be abused. Pray tell, how do you feel how labelers can be misused as opposed to an app like TweetDeck etc that simply leverages the features of the platform?