Allow bridged accounts to subscribe to Bluesky blocklists

[jonpincus]

Subscribing to blocklists is key for reducing unwanted interaction on Bluesky -- including from harassers. The increase in harassment over the last week makes this functionality even more critical.

Not sure just how this would work from a user interface perspective, but I want @thenexusofprivacy.infosec.exchange.ap.brid.gy to be able to subscribe to a moderation list like https://bsky.app/profile/blacksky.app/lists/3kaaqcnnxi72w Bluesky offers two subscription options -- muting and blocking -- so a low-tech (but not particularly usable) option is to send a DM to the Bridgy Fed account

subscribe https://bsky.app/profile/blacksky.app/lists/3kaaqcnnxi72w [block | mute]
unsubscribe https://bsky.app/profile/blacksky.app/lists/3kaaqcnnxi72w

[snarfed]

Great feature request. Thank you for filing!

That kind of DM command definitely seems like the most likely path, at least for now. Not ideal, but UX for doing things across the bridge like this will always be a bit awkward at best. At least it's an ongoing subscription that automatically gets updates to the list, unlike most fediverse software that only has one-time imports at best.

[snarfed]

This is similar to #1406 for blocking individual users across the bridge who aren't bridged themselves.

[Tamschi]

See also #1406 (comment) for other proposed syntax. I think generally it's easier to have the URL last in the command, but

[un]block <web-url>
[un]block <at:-url>
[un]mute <web-url>
[un]mute <at:-url>

would work nicely, I think. It's important that the block isn't doubled-up so that it can't get stuck.

Mutes have to be handled privately/largely internally by Bridgy Fed.
I'm not sure what would go into that, but I think it would take a significant effort and possibly runtime cost.

It's also possible that list blocks have to be handled by Bridgy Fed to an extent, to prevent forwarding into the fediverse of posts that wouldn't be surfaced in Bluesky's Appview in such cases.

[jonpincus]

Mutes have to be handled privately/largely internally by Bridgy Fed.
I'm not sure what would go into that, but I think it would take a significant effort and possibly runtime cost.

I think it's fine if mutes aren't handled initially (or any time soon), blocking's the key here.

[Tamschi]

I agree, yes. It's still very useful even if the list block implementation is so incomplete that a few users' programmatic interactions can still be bridged.

(If we're talking about similar block lists, there currently are a few users trying to retaliate by putting every subscriber to those lists on their own often mislabeled or defamatory lists, but that's in the low single digits of accounts. It's not bothering me much since the less overlap my and their circles have the better, in my eyes. I assume the moderation team will take care of them eventually though, since they're really going a bit far.)