So I can personally mute an instance if j so choose; can I block one as well? Or no?
🇳🇱
@realcaseyrollins no though blocking really doesnt make much sense in the context.. what would that even do?
@freemo Well because of the whole SBC doxxing controversy, I want to block them so they can't read my data for doxxing reasons. (I think that's how it works.)
I was considering muting it but I don't think it would do much in that regard.
The problem is that the general public can already see your data. SBC members are a subset of that population, so you can't award them less access than they start with. Imagine I text someone a link to your profile, and they open it in a fresh browser window - how do you verify that the unauthenticated visitor is *not* a member of SBC?
This is the same as the original issue they had with QOTO that precipitated all the drama, actually. Our subscribe mechanism reads the RSS feed, which anybody can do, so there isn't a way they can stop us from accessing that data.
Very valid points. But keep in mind at the end of the day it doesnt change the fact that if you mute/block someone it **will** in fact ensure there is less of a chance you get doxxed or attacked.
Sure they can easily just open it up in a new browser window. But because your toots arent flying past their face in a federated feed unless someone explicitly tells them about the post they will never know it existed in the first place.
So while it is not a security measure in any sense what so ever it can still be effective in protecting you, albeit limited as it may be.
@freemo @khird This is my perspective in trying to block SBC.