@jdp23 Bluesky bridges to the open social web via BridgyFed in very privacy respectful ways, so that is fine … plus I argue their privacy respecting in that users have 100% agency if they want to be on an all public network or not. And if anyone else PII about them, bluessky has systems in place to moderate.

Immagona argue (again) that the way BridgyFed works, it enables convenient stalking, prevents cross-network blocking and fails to communicate interaction - so while it's apparent the intent was to respect privacy, in practice it is the opposite.
@tchambers @jdp23

It’s not that it prohibits it, but there’s no way for a bridged aunt to subscribe to Bluesky blocklists or labellers
@tchambers @osma

Either side may not even be aware that on the other side, someone is engaging in an activity that warrants blocking, because an unbridged account can engage in whatever - including replies, boosts etc without becoming visible to the OP.
@tchambers @jdp23

@osma @jdp23 Using the example from the POV of an AP user. If someone in ATprot land is doing bad shit that warrants blocking, but is unbridged and so that AP user never sees it, what is the problem? And once that harmful ATProot user DOES bridge, the AP user has all the agency in the world to moderate it.

Harassment is a problem even if the person being targeted doesn't directly see it. This is why we have blocking in addition to muting!

@tchambers @osma

@jdp23 @tchambers @osma Agreed wrt just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not happening. This is a missing piece in Bridgy Fed (hidden interaction) that we've been discussing - will have more to share soon.

@quillmatiq @jdp23 @osma Cool 👍

@jdp23 @osma OK but there still plenty of agency on the Acitvtypub side of the fence to use good Fedi moderation.
That's all that counts.

"all that counts"? Not only is that factually incorrect, but wow.
@tchambers @jdp23