Replying to Avatar πŸ₯©β„π•–π•Ÿπ•–π•˜π•’π••π•– ₿𝕦π•₯π•”π•™π•–π•£βš‘

I definitely get where you're coming from with this, and the intention is right.

But, Devil's advocate...aside from children, what if my friends and family want to see the dick pics you mention? I don't, but I can hit block. It's not up to me or anyone else to decide what others see or partake in. If they choose to delegate that to be, great! I see a real use case for the ability to subscribe to another's mute list in the future. But I personally don't feel the default should be to remove content without user intervention. Perhaps a part of onboarding in the future can include a way to subscribe to community moderation from the start? As long as users are aware they are entering a filtered and curated experience.
Avatar
Vitor Pamplona 2y ago

If you report, they can always see what you have marked. You are not deciding for them but adding information to their feed in the same way you do with likes, zaps, boosts or reports.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
πŸ₯©β„π•–π•Ÿπ•–π•˜π•’π••π•– ₿𝕦π•₯π•”π•™π•–π•£βš‘ 2y ago

That's a solid approach, but I've still encountered individuals in my blocked list that I wouldn't have blocked and I never interacted with. I don't think that was the intention behind the filtering you set up, but humans are a wildcard.

It's tricky, there are a lot of accounts I follow and interact with that people close to me would never want to deal with. But they also may want to see things I block. I am mainly concerned with the end user being blind to what's happening, or individuals who may not realize their actions are getting them filtered ending up in a personal echo chamber.