π’ͺ pfp
π’ͺ
@shl0ms
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
6 replies
3 recasts
28 reactions
Satoshi Tomatomoto pfp
Satoshi Tomatomoto
@tomato.eth
Are blocks possible with an open network like this?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
π’ͺ pfp
π’ͺ
@shl0ms
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
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Satoshi Tomatomoto pfp
Satoshi Tomatomoto
@tomato.eth
That makes sense. There should be a way to prevent someone from following you or replying to you. They'll always be able to see your casts, though.
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
π’ͺ pfp
π’ͺ
@shl0ms
yeah i think that’s the conflation the team is making i don’t care if they can see my posts, you can do that on twitter with an alt i care about their ability to interact with my posts
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Varun Srinivasan pfp
Varun Srinivasan
@v
@tomato.eth is right, blocking is trivial to implement in a centralized app, but very hard if not impossible in decentralized systems. You can’t trivially block someone from linking to your website or sending you an email. It’s just your apps that filter it out before you see it. FC works roughly the same.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
π’ͺ pfp
π’ͺ
@shl0ms
so let them reply to me and filter it for every other user
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Varun Srinivasan pfp
Varun Srinivasan
@v
If the ask is for greater control over who can see reply to your casts in Warpcast from people you muted , that’s doable (on on our roadmap)
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
deefsπŸ–πŸˆ pfp
deefsπŸ–πŸˆ
@deefs.eth
Which would essentially fortify this platform as an echo chamber. Let's get real, pulling that on your own website is one thing... but curating what your followers see from other people under your posts is inherently censorship. It's like speaking in public and then dragging off a dissenting voice from the crowd.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Varun Srinivasan pfp
Varun Srinivasan
@v
The dissenting voice physical analogy doesn’t translate neatly to online actions. It’s trivially cheap to jump into thousands of conversations in seconds and drown out other voices, at little to no cost to yourself.
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
deefsπŸ–πŸˆ pfp
deefsπŸ–πŸˆ
@deefs.eth
Fair, but the intention behind this request is to enable the capacity to silence individual expression, not exclusively to control spam.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
deefsπŸ–πŸˆ pfp
deefsπŸ–πŸˆ
@deefs.eth
or if it's that you mean it's trivial for an individual to drown out someone's voice to begin with, so it may as well be an added feature... it's hard for me to get behind that logic. Seems like trying to solve a problem by pretending it's not a problem.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction