perihelions 4 hours ago

What's the point of "enable[ing] users to communicate their consent preferences", when none of the entities who receive those preferences are under any obligation or restraint to respect them?

This is a "close elevator" button. It's a placebo button your users can press that can make them feel—without any basis in reality—more safe, more private, more $whatever. It's deceptive. An ethical company should get rid of those no-op preferences settings altogether.

2
dartos 4 hours ago

I think the goal is to enable users to avoid content they don’t wish to see, not prevent content from going to specific places.

perihelions 3 hours ago

No, in this case they are talking about consent about where their public posts are scraped to. I was quoting and replying to this part:

- "Bluesky said that it’s looking at ways to enable users to communicate their consent preferences externally, though it’s up to those parties whether they respect those preferences. The company posted: “Bluesky won’t be able to enforce this consent outside of our systems. It will be up to outside developers to respect these settings. We’re having ongoing conversations with engineers & lawyers and we hope to have more updates to share on this shortly!”.

dartos 3 hours ago

Yes, this particular feature isn’t effective at stopping content from going somewhere unwanted, but I think the main design goal of bsky and the AT protocol isn’t that.

tacticus 4 hours ago

HF wouldn't exist if it was an ethical company.