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.
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.
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!”.
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.