So someone messaged me privately and asked how absolute this is.. like would we block an instance calling for genocide. I feel my response is import to reiterate here, so here it is:

Its not just about the authorities, it is about the people whose lives are at risk by that call to genocide having the right to see those posts and use that information to look out for their own safety... If someone is doxed, they should know, if someone is threatened, they should know, and they should be able to take action.

Someone saying violent things online doesnt guarantee some police officer will meander by and take them down. The law only tends to get involved once someone is reported, and sometimes not even then. No one will be reporting a site if no one can see or know it is there.

The question is, if someone is being physically threatened and having their life in jeopardy how are you helping them by blocking the privileges of the **victim** and disallowing the victim the right to see the threat placed against them?

In short, I refuse to take away rights from the victim simply because there is a violent bad actor out there. If the victim doesn't want to see it they simply need to import the block list and the problem is solved for them, so why not keep the power in the victims hands?

@freemo thought-provoking approach to a hard problem, thank you for this. it seems we need even better opt-in blocking guides and protocols for different categories on the user side as this scales (maybe it exists and I'm not aware but I mostly see server-level lists).

@phil im trying to work on a better technological solutionn as we speak.. i have some ideas its mostly about findingn either the time, or a person with time, to do it. I reached out to a mstodon dev to pay them to help with out code... lets see if it works out.