i make myself available in various places online 24/7 with basically the only stipulation being that i can block the unstable people my persona inevitably attracts

cannot imagine using FC to replace Twitter without blocks, especially as DAUs flood in

it’s disheartening to see them keep conflating mutes with blocks

shl0ms.twitter shl0ms.telegram shl0ms.com/bio /moonbeam

𒐪𒐪𒐪𒐪𒐪                          
𒐪𒐪𒐪𒐪𒐪 
𒐪𒐪𒐪𒐪𒐪
𒐪𒐪𒐪𒐪𒐪                          


Are blocks possible with an open network like this?

Artist from the future.

NFTs since 1998.

Bitcoin since 1985.

Your second favorite artist's second favorite artist.

https://manifold.gallery/tomato

perhaps it is against the ethos but it is 100% possible for them to implement a feature that allowed me to restrict someone’s ability to respond to my posts

This is pretty much exactly the path that Bluesky went down. 

The Farcaster team can learn a lot from what did / didn’t work with Bluesky’s ATProtocol.

And they’re going to need it, quickly, if they keep US phone number registration free/open.

Web Tinkerer. DWeb. Open Source. Community. Just another one of the bees 🐝

Oh, not what I meant. I’m on Bluesky and they did do it right and fixed it.

If you were on before they got that implemented, it was likely rough. Which I see starting here.

Bkuesky has mute / block implementations in a decentralized environment. Including blocking interactions.

yep 1000%

guess who’s not using bsky ever again

backend eng; full-stack curious

writer, icon, retired rave queen

I know what you mean but I also know the team very well and it was not driven by a mob. 

How it’s been implemented in client / protocol is pretty good. Works in 3rd party clients. We’ll see how that holds up when federation is on.

i would highly recommend that bluesky not be used as an example, feature decisions should not be driven by a rabid mob