The other key feature there has been proactive platform moderation -- truly bad actors have been banned early & you can block a whole list of bad-faith accounts at once.

AT proto seems like it would be perfect for a wikipedia-style fact check organization.

But who will believe a group that can’t take the heat?

The thing correct information doesn’t change so it will feel like an echo chamber to people who have been taught being sold a new idea each week is the same as “challenging yourself.”

A slight bend on, “There is no such thing as an alternate fact.”

Something that seems to confound assholes.

Yes!

Muting is fine, blocking is censorship. You'll know it is decentralized when someone can run an instance and remove the blocking and censorship. (Never, I predict)

You already could have a client that treats a block as a mute. Easier to just open an incognito tab though.

> In theory, a bad actor could create their own rogue client or interface which ignores some of the blocking behaviors, since the content is posted to a public network. But showing content or notifications to the person who created the block won’t be possible, as that behavior is controlled by their own PDS and client.

https://docs.bsky.app/blog/block-implementation

I’d argue this one feature is the core reason Bluesky has 30 million users.

There is no doubt censorship is popular. It's not for me though.

From that document -

>creation of reply posts, quote posts, embeds, and mentions are blocked;

This is the unmitigable censorship that can't be removed without decentralization.

The users are doing the blocking, not Bluesky.

We’re just slamming the door in the face of Nazis and fascists.

It’s my individual right to avoid assholes.

Not censorship.

That's what your mute is for. 100% support that.

Bluesky preventing users from replying to your posts on your say-so. Yup, there's a word for that.

Yeah, it’s called harassment.