Hi! Sorry for the late reply, I actually posted a reply much earlier but it looks like I was shadowbanned from piefed.social for about half a day. No, I have no idea why. Whatever insanity led to that looks like it's been reversed now.

Here's the reply I posted earlier:

Hey! I totally get your question. I suppose it really depends on the type of blocklist. For your banana example, I wouldn’t expect anyone to review or challenge that. If someone doesn’t like bananas, that’s entirely their preference, and there’s nothing to discuss.

What I had in mind with the corrections rule was more for lists where entries are based on certain criteria or claims about an account. For example, if someone maintains a blocklist of tankies and an account ends up on it because of a misunderstanding or a statement taken out of context, it would be nice if they could approach the maintainer, explain the situation and hopefully have a civil conversation about it.

Of course, the maintainer isn’t obligated to change their mind. It’s more about being open to considering new information.

Keep in mind that these rules aren’t set in stone. This is something relatively new to the Threadiverse, and I think we’ll figure out the nuances as we go along.

Hey! I totally get your question. I suppose it really depends on the type of blocklist.

For your banana example, I wouldn't expect anyone to review or challenge that. If someone doesn't like bananas, that's entirely their preference, and there's nothing to discuss.

What I had in mind with the corrections rule was more for lists where entries are based on certain criteria or claims about an account. For example, if someone maintains a blocklist of tankies and an account ends up on it because of a misunderstanding or a statement taken out of context, it would be nice if they could approach the maintainer, explain the situation and hopefully have a civil conversation about it.

Of course, the maintainer isn't obligated to change their mind. It's more about being open to considering new information.

Keep in mind that these rules aren't set in stone. This is something relatively new to the Threadiverse, and I think we'll figure out the nuances as we go along.

I may be completely off topic but be assured this is a genuine question:

I was surprised to see this new community. Even more so than the idea of sharing 'blocklists' and maybe, like I think you mentioned, it is something different from my own personal list of blocked users and keywords? But if it is indeed the same type of blocked content, it was the idea that we should...

. Be open to corrections.

If an inclusion is challenged with relevant information or evidence, list maintainers are encouraged to review it. Entries that no longer meet the stated criteria should be reconsidered.

I mean, isn't the whole purpose of blocking to give an individual the ability to get rid of whatever (content/person/community) they deem unpleasant enough to not be willing to see or read any more of it in the future? What is there to discuss?

I mean, to make a silly comparison, I don't like bananas but I know a lot of people do like them. Should I force myself to eat bananas and to pretend I like them because many of those other people would consider I have poor taste if I insisted on not eating bananas? To me, there is not a right a a wrong stance regarding that, and nothing to discuss either: either one like, or they don't. That's fine in both cases. Maybe it's just that I don't expect anyone to agree with my personal preferences, and I don't wait for anyone to tell me what I'm expected to be (dis)liking.

Once again, I may be missing out on the purpose of the community, if that's the case I apologize for that and you're more than welcome to delete my comment, but this really surprised me and I thought it could be worth discussing.

Ah, I get what you mean now. I understand the suggestion, but I think that would actually narrow the purpose of the community.

Blocklists aren't exclusively about filtering problematic behaviour. They can also be about personal preferences, interests or topics people simply don't want in their feeds. There's nothing necessarily wrong with the accounts or communities being blocked.

I want this community to be a hub for everybody's blocklists, not just those targeting harmful behaviour. That's why I'd prefer to keep the wording broad. But I do appreciate the feedback, it's food for thought :)

(Hey, that rhymes!)

I am not suggesting any rule change, just a rephrasing of the sidebar, that would shift the focus toward actions commited rather than preferences and interests.

Hi! I think there's a bit of a disconnect here, or maybe I'm not understanding your comment fully.

The purpose of this community is simply for anyone to share their blocklists. They can be about anything, not just problematic users or behaviour.

For example, someone might block communities about football, cryptocurrency, pineapple-on-pizza debates, AI-generated content, or people who put raisins in cookies. 😂

I'm not suggesting people should avoid opposing views or different perspectives. But people should also be free to curate their own feeds. This community is just a place to share those lists and let everyone decide what works for them.

I do appreciate the perspective, and it's a good reminder that people use blocklists for different reasons. That's exactly the kind of thing we can discuss here!

As this is a general discussion thread, I thought I'd pipe in with a suggestion....

Filtering accounts and communities only because they don't align with your own preferences and interests can be quite harmful, it creates a larger echo chamber that can reenforce your own beliefs and diminish other's.

May I suggest changing the wording of the sidebar to focus more on bad behavior (harrasment and similar) rather than the preferences and interests?

Opposing views/preferences are needed, it can help you either change your views or strengthen your current views.

This is just a suggestion, but I think it would be a good idea to start the community off as a community to focus more on problem users and less on differences in preferences