@jerry word-based filtering has many many issues. As server blocklists do. Before having tools that reinforce this, we want those tools to not be invisible to users and provide some auditing. Not doing so, in our experience, creates very bad experiences for users.
Add the fact that being a federated network makes most of the things much more difficult to implement properly.
@vmstan @doug

@jerry @vmstan @doug Something that might help would be allowing individuals to subscribe to curated block lists, not just admins. Not sure how disruptive that would be to the fediverse.

@jerry
I think there are a lot of marginalised people - users, mods and admins - who would have a lot to say about additional safety features, and would appreciate being consulted in design and testing before it's released.
@vmstan

@jerry As we all know, Trust and Safety is hard, and a challenge is that when it fails it hits some users far harder than others. The idea that it's unduly onerous on those users to block trolls is new to me - I'm not a domain expert. But I want to hear Black voices, so their problem is, to an extent, my problem. Could a mitigation be curated block lists? I have a foggy recollection of such a facility being available on a certain legacy microblogging platform.

@jerry @vmstan @doug I've seen several people asking for some means to sync block lists cooperatively between instances. Not for post content, but for accounts etc.

Does that seem like a reasonable ask?

@jerry I have no ideas about the programming. But it would help already if private blocking of people would be a real block and not only a "silencing". Often I can read everything in profiles that I blocked long before (only sometimes the profile is "not available"). So trolls often make screenshots for harassing people who have blocked them.

The other feature I liked on X: close a post completely for comments. A lot of people miss it.

@vmstan @doug

@jerry @vmstan @doug

I think opt out is a bad model for federation.