Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I would love the ability to copy someone else's block list. Some various popular personalities on ActivityPub have had to deal with abuse from servers and individuals that I would like to preemptively filter out of my time line.

However, that shouldn't be the default.

I'm not sure why this page keeps bringing up that "people on other platforms can find out if they're blocked or not". You're always going to have ways to detect that. It doesn't address the conclusion "so it may as well just be public".

There's something to be said for server-local blocking ("muting"), which this post also advocates. However, if you're going with that approach, why put "real" blocks in your protocol?



> I'm not sure why this page keeps bringing up that "people on other platforms can find out if they're blocked or not".

The second party can find out if they're blocked by the first party.

A third party cannot find out all the people that the first party blocked.

That's a massive usability difference.


> A third party cannot find out all the people that the first party blocked.

the third party can fetch a list of all valid user IDs, and sequentially query the first party about each of those user IDs

it takes more time and may be subject to e.g. rate limits, but the information is equally available


> and sequentially query the first party about each of those user IDs

Only if the third party is allowed to query whether there's a block between the first party and the second party. If the block is only visible to the first party, i.e. there's a view filter, then there's no good way of figuring this out.


if a block should only be readable by the party that created it, then there is no reason for that information to be shared in the first place


Which sort of is my point. An option to share blocking information with another (trusted?) person should be possible, but as an explicit opt-in from the first party, with the third party not being able to intercept this in any meaningful way.


but this is useless, isn't it?

if blocking information is only available to a given third-party on an opt-on basis from the blocker, then what purpose does this information serve?


"Hey, I know that you have an extensive personal blocklist, can I take a look at it and adapt it to my uses so that I don't start from scratch?"

"Hey, I know that your server has an extensive personal blocklist, can I take a look at it and adapt it to my server so that I don't start from scratch?"


i don't understand your point

a "block list" is associated with a user, not a server


Not all are. E.g. Fediverse defederation is a server-wide block, and not all Fediverse instances are making their defederation lists public.


Well, sure, sharing a block list but what if you simply want to quietly not be bothered by someone.

You should have both I think. One so the other person knows, one so the other person doesn't know explicitly.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: