Comment by taurknaut
7 days ago
I'm struggling to come up with what intent this behavior was supposed to perform. I block probably one person every other thread.
I don't block you because I had some kind of conflict, I blocked you because I don't like what you tweet and I don't want to see it and it's not clear what "not interested" actually does. Why this would impact anyone other than whom I'm blocking is perplexing. I certainly can't vouch for what they want to see and whom they want to interact with.
The reason this impacts other people is because Bluesky wants to discourage “dunk” culture in which one user continues to make fun of or harass another user who has indicated they do not wish to interact or participate. By orphaning interactions after users block each other, it becomes much harder for unrelated users to QT a post and add their own commentary to something that has already been definitively concluded.
Dunking on people is like half the value of twitter-like platforms. I only go on twitter (or I'm guessing bluesky) to see politicians and journalists and pundits and celebrities get dunked on. It's a public square: open moderation of social values is half the point. It's the conflict that makes us stronger.
Haters will say dis/misinformation makes it not worth it, but i simply point out that it's the truly stupid people who speak the loudest and you need to look deeper. There's no going back to a world where for-profit media is above critique. The relentless violence in palestine firmly endorsed and enabled by western media has pretty much destroyed any faith I had that our for-profit media is capable of self-regulation. Dunking on these morons is a public good.
What we really need to figure out is a way to systemically encourage punching up, not down.