[bangaladore]

Hidden, by all accounts, is a deletion on a platform like this.

US free speech allows someone to protest on public property (within reason, of course). If they could only protest in their home, would that be free speech? By forcing them to "hide" the protest from public view, you've essentially removed their capability of protesting.

[jazzyjackson]

But it's not hiding them from public view, it's hiding them from the view of your followers

It's a different problem than censorship, more of a split reality issue, each person sees a different world

[verdverm]

> US free speech allows someone to protest on public property

Social media is not public property or a public square. Social media also spans all geographies and legal speech landscapes.

[bangaladore]

Nobody said it was. I'm not trying to assert that social media should guarantee free speech. That's for the platform to decide.

All I was demonstrating is that hiding is equivalent to deletion. Claiming otherwise is disingenuous.

[orwin]

But it isn't my point?

I wasn't clear, but to me that thing you're focusing on isn't important, the 'remove your tweet from the hidden person timeline' is.

Let's say you posted pro-Y content (I wanted to say pro-X but Elon kinda ruined X as undefined variable in public discourse :/) that a pro-Z influencer with 10M followers dislike and heavily engage on. You _will_ receive at least thousands of DMs from this guy's follower (even on non-political subjects that freaking happen btw). You would then have to change your usage of bluesky. Unless you use this new functionality on the influencer tweet. Then his followers would have trouble finding you, and unless the harassment is organized (it isn't 99% of the time imho), you will be able to continue your life as nothing happened.