A few thoughts having attended the game tonight:

1. Joe is the one that wanted Garza to take that shot? He's a sicko. Just give him the COTY award now.
2. The Magic suck, lol.

Miami Heat are a good basketball team, oops April Fools lol

😭

Who the fuck keeps saying "Test 1 2 1 2"? LOL

Thin Mints: "Hold my beer"

Newegg literally says it's 1, 2, and 3.

In fact, I’m going to close replies down on this now. Got my answer and don’t need any more discussion about the pros and cons.

I do appreciate everybody that replied even if I didn’t agree with all of it, but I think it’s enough.

Nope, that’s not what I want. Already explained that elsewhere. But thanks anyways.

Fair enough.

I guess my personal moderation preference then is to allow everyone to view the history up to the point of block & form their own opinions (regardless of whether those align with mine or not).

Maybe it is selfish of me to think that should be the default, but that is where I stand.

For example (and it's one I've already given somebody else in this thread), what if I blocked you right now? All your replies gone. That's ridiculous. Nothing you've said thus far necessitates that. And even if you were to say something later that did, that's no reason to scrub the existing replies.

Never said I was. All I said was that I don't think me blocking somebody for something they said in reply to one of my posts should automatically mean nobody else gets to see what that person replied.

No, I actually agree with you there. I'm just concerned of how the feature as currently implemented could be abused or leveraged in more unreasonable ways.

Does it do more good than harm in general? Maybe. I can't present a compelling argument that it doesn't. Just thinking it could be better.

Ok, got it. Fair point and not something I considered.

I think a better solution to this, however, would be to prevent additional engagement from applicable replies onward when OP has blocked that person. That would leave the pre-block discussion intact but solve the problem you're describing.

Can you give an example of this? Because other than the replies thing I originally mentioned, I don't see how it's different from other social media. But perhaps I'm missing something.

But yet here you are on social media engaging in discourse? lol

Ok, but this is not exactly what I want either (although I probably would have done this if I knew that blocking would have removed the original reply).

Ideally, I would have:

- ended all future interaction with him
- kept his original reply viewable for everybody else (even if only by opt-in)

Didn't know that at the time and I'm actually still not 100% sure I understand what that is / what it means. Trying to Google it, but nothing is coming up.

In the context of the example in my original post, I blocked the guy because he said something ignorant. I am so secure in my conviction about this that I actually want other people to see how stupid what he said was so that they can block him too.

Ok, fair enough.

To address that then, I think that reasonable discussion should not be subject to a one-way kill switch. If somebody doesn't want to interact with somebody else any further, that's fine. But the existing conversation should remain accessible for others to form their own opinions.

I wasn't even thinking about someone blocking me & what that would mean in terms of my replies. That thought didn't cross my mind.

You, on the other hand, have only framed this in terms of me, myself, and I. You just want what you want. You're the exact type of person that makes this dangerous.

Notice how my original tweet was actually the opposite of this?

I blocked somebody that disagreed with me. I didn't know it would hide their reply for everybody. I'm uncomfortable with that part of it. It doesn't seem fair. Other people should be able to see it and come to their own conclusions.

Semantics

Answered in another post ICYMI

I think your perspective on this is very warped if you think anybody should be allowed to completely silence anybody else for everybody for any reason in the interest of creating their own perfectly curated experience at all times, but you're entitled to your opinion

And to answer your question, it is very very bad because it enables the possibility of creating an echo chamber. It is the exact reason why Bluesky gets a bad rep.

I have never agreed with that criticism before, but now I'm starting to see some merit in it.

So just to be clear, it wouldn't bother you whatsoever if I just blocked you right now just because I didn't want this chain of posts to show up for whatever reason? Again, I'm not actually going to do that. But it sounds like you are perfectly content with that and don't see any problem with it.

Now what if it's not specifically harassment? What if I just want to silence somebody and make it so that nobody else can see what they put regardless of context?

For example, what if I blocked you right now? I'm not going to obviously, but what if I did?

Can you see why that would be a problem?

If somebody is harassing me, I block them and move on. They can't engage with me further. My friends can see that they were harassing me and they can go block that person too. Problem solved.

Glad to hear you are a voice of reason when it comes to this. Personally, I feel this makes Bluesky lack credibility. I've seen people say it's an echo chamber & I always disagreed with that. But a feature like this certainly doesn't dispel that notion.

Hopefully this will be changed in the future.

Spam / bot replies are one thing. In that context, I'd agree it makes sense. Hiding replies is ok too because it means (theoretically) that other people can view them if they want.

Being able to block ANY replies to yours so that nobody can see them regardless of the context is very, very bad.

Ah right. That's a good point. Didn't think of that.

In that case, I think they're pretty much just following precedent.

It's shitty, but I get it.