The EU prohibits discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age, and sexual orientation. Any shared block list would have to avoid doing that - and I can't see a way of guaranteeing that. Community block lists and labels should go completely.
Mainly directed at Rose around the “more accountability” point. But I suppose a benefit of this system is that if Bluesky did any of the things you’re proposing we’d just keep things as is for Blacksky and users can then decide where they want to go.
This is my own view and not at all indicative of what’s happening at bsky: if we reduce context collapse—so people see who made lists and what they stand for—then reputable lists will rise to the top.
i am confused. where are lists without visible owners now?
honestly, being able to see the accounts that create and contribute to lists should already be a thing
Community notes on lists + the ability to add a record from someone’s repo as “provenance” for a list inclusion or labeling decisions would go a long way toward evaluating lists
Unfortunately that assumes that people aren't discriminatory by nature. Everyone has prejudices, these lists and labels just allow them to practice them on a large scale.
Simple solution: make lists and labels consensual on both sides - i.e. no one can label me or put me on a list without my agreement. Lists and labels can be useful - but are wide open to abuse if they are used for unofficial moderation.
The problem is defining 'reputable'. Before the mainstreaming of bluesky there was a big scandal of the biggest moderation list creator abusing their power, someone else linked to it was a fed .etc .etc --> supremely messy fall out.
And when it comes to beliefs, one person's "reputable" is another's "unconscionable". Moderation simply cannot be done on a community basis. It has to be run by someone on a Bluesky paycheque so at least there's some legal accountability.
Sure, but the community will vocally rebel. Bsky has to look out for adhering to app store guidelines, whereas the community is only interested in moral guidelines. The community knows what it wants to say to JK Rowling, but it will get the app banned if Bsky endorses it.
That's pretty much why the EU switched away from holding the community responsible for their own content on any given platform, to holding the platforms responsible for what happens on it. Trusting the community to "do the right thing" just doesn't work out well.
…maybe I’m not as up on EU law as I ought to be but how would it be enforceable on a community driven feature?
The EU would determine which organisation is responsible for providing that framework, or which organisations are relying on that framework, and ensure that they're not allowing the outsourcing of discrimination on their systems.