I don't think so: A federated network of social-media mini-sites doesn't really relate to things like blocking ads in your browser, automatically filtering out sections of radio/podcasts in your car that happen to contain siren noises, or a parent putting up barriers to adult content on a device.
Exactly. Imagine how overwhelmed the courts would be with real cases if people could sue over hypothetical harms. People have many fears—some justified, some not. The main reason you can’t just sue for a theoretical harm is that everyone is focused on dealing with real issues.
It's really interesting to imagine what might happen if people had a legal right to filter their own digital experience without retaliation.
Sure, it might deepen some echo-chambers, but it also might curb the worst excesses of the advertisement/spyware economy.
P.S.: Some implicit aspects:
1. It would be something you can easily to assert to stop dumb lawsuits quickly without expense.
2. You can't blindly sign it away through click-wrap agreements.
3. It extends to helping others with the creation/sale of filtering tools, unofficial patches, and jailbreaks.
Isn't this the dream of bluesky?
I don't think so: A federated network of social-media mini-sites doesn't really relate to things like blocking ads in your browser, automatically filtering out sections of radio/podcasts in your car that happen to contain siren noises, or a parent putting up barriers to adult content on a device.
Are web not taking about being able to curate/moderate/filter your own feeds?
Because one of Bluesky's goals is to have 3rd party filtering and moderation.
Courts don’t like it when you waste their time suing over theoretical harms
Exactly. Imagine how overwhelmed the courts would be with real cases if people could sue over hypothetical harms. People have many fears—some justified, some not. The main reason you can’t just sue for a theoretical harm is that everyone is focused on dealing with real issues.
Zuckerman vs. Zuckerberg, man vs. mountain...