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                          


What does block do that mute doesn’t? 

What happens when another client chooses not to honor the block?

shl0ms.twitter shl0ms.telegram shl0ms.com/bio

𒐪𒐪𒐪𒐪𒐪           
mint ɪɴᴛᴇɴᴛ: shl0ms.com/--                
𒐪𒐪𒐪𒐪𒐪 




a mute is not the same as a block because the person can still reply to your posts with everyone else able to see except you. if anything it is worse because you are not aware that everyone else can see the reply, and there is a certain type of unwell person that gets enraged when you do not interact with their reply

below + i don’t see why WC can’t take away the ability to reply or even see posts of someone who blocked you in the front end

below + i don’t see why WC can’t take away the ability to reply or even see posts of someone who blocked you in the front end

https://warpcast.com/shl0ms.eth/0x41ba4682

i think as the user base grows most people coming from Twitter with larger followings will use clients that support blocks. if their reply still exists and is viewable on clients used by 5% of users then we are 95% of the way towards a usable and scalable platform

Founder /kiwi-news, a decentralized Hacker News

not arguing for it on the protocol level; they already have mute on the client level.

I feel like I already had this argument 7 times on here. If I had to speculate, then I‘d say that there are probably no sufficiently privacy-preserving ways for the FC team to implement block in the protocol level. E.g. u could have a public list of people you block, but I think it can be seen at Bluesky…