Really basic concept that most people learn when they're two -

being able to say "no" to someone is a prerequisite for being able to have a consensual, rather than coerced, interaction with them.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/23/24252438/x-blocked-users-view-public-posts

The only way that an interaction can be consensual and voluntary is if you can say 'no' and have that refusal respected.

There are no exceptions.

And to make this perfectly clear:

This 'no' can happen at any time. It designates the boundary between when an interaction is consensual and when it stops being consensual.

You cannot apply a retroactive no. It takes effect at the point at which that refusal takes place.

You can decide to -stop- denying consent to the interaction at a later point in time and resume it, as well!

But consent is only meaningful when you have the agency to do these things and when the other parties in the interaction abide by them.

Addendum because I just know some unutterable asshole will fart this out -

No, viewing a post is an interaction, fuckhead.

You ain't a voyeur trespassing on someone if they can't see you hiding in the bushes.

Consent requires both parties know what the hell is going on; again, really fucking basic concept.

@munin

How does this model handle the case of person A making otherwise-public-but-not-available-to-B disparaging statements about B? (I assume -- potentially incorrectly -- that the A's lack of consent for B to read the statements is not publicly visible, because that's typically the case.) (I can imagine the way this usually happened on Twitter -- that ~everyone knew this to be a possibility and thus interpreted B's silence differently -- but wonder if you have some other possible solution in mind.)

@robryk

Your neighbor is complaining about your dog barking all night to their coworkers.

@munin

IRL it's very obvious that the complaints are hidden from the target of the complaints. The situation I'm trying to paint is one where this is not obvious to others (because the complaints are ostensibly public, and yet not available to the target of the complaints specifically).

I guess you expect people not to treat "complaint is public" as "B likely has seen the complaint", and explicitly talk to B?

@robryk

In a society where people are engaging in activities consensually, I would expect for your neighbor's coworkers to say "have you talked to your neighbor about the dog barking instead of complaining to us, because that's none of our business - or maybe get some earplugs?"

@munin

Fair point; generally being more proactive about getting the other side's story is both generally good and completely(?) mitigates this problem.

@robryk

Yes, as a general rule, I think that most problems in society can be solved by open and honest communication, and by actively looking for a compassionate viewpoint for the other participants' concerns.

I am aware that there are many people who disagree with me and who do not want to engage in open and honest dialogue.

And those are the people I block, because I do not want to consent to their kind of interactions.

@munin

The communication has to happen under Byzantine fault conditions sometimes though, given that people will sometimes be maliciously dishonest in different ways when interacting with different people. But I think I overestimated how much worse this makes things, because after all everyone has an equivalent of a broadcast primitive.