I think it’s more about not taking posts out of context. Communities need boundaries between them. Substack and other blogging tools are good this way.

For Bluesky, the problem is that the replies to someone you follow can be pretty bad. (Official Bluesky posts are an example of this.) People can filter them individually, but it’s not the same as a blog with good moderation.

I don’t think I could do a whole lot if the replies to one of my Bluesky posts were bad?

▲

dhosek 4 days ago | parent [-]

But blocking on Bluesky works better than it did on Twitter. If you post a crummy reply to me and I block you, nobody sees your reply. There are a few other small differences between Bluesky and Twitter that really do a lot to cut down on the pile-on effect that’s common at Twitter.

▲

skybrian 3 days ago | parent [-]

That’s good, but there are low-information posts where a hard block on first offense is kind of harsh.

▲

dhosek 3 days ago | parent [-]

Nah, I have no obligation to interact with anyone I don’t want to.

▲

xdennis 3 days ago | parent [-]

That's true, but the result is a boring platform where everyone agrees on everything, and even the most minor disagreement will get you blocked.

This post by a user who discovered that he instantly got 30000 blockers simply by joining and following some starter packs of journalists IS HILARIOUS: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueskySocial/comments/1mgz19y/why_...

	▲	KingMob 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		It's important to distinguish between the blocklists and the general blocking functionality of Bluesky. The blocklists, as an experiment, are too easily gamed or abused. (I never use them.) List maintainers have added people they have personal beef with, and bad actors have started deceptive lists that change after enough people follow. But the general block/mute functionality on Bsky is way better than most social media, and goes a long way to avoiding abusive or unpleasant people.