[aucisson_masque]

> a hall of shame

Usually that's the opposite that happen with these kind of people. They are going to look forward on being the at the top of the leaderboard, like a child doing stupid things only to get noticed by its parents.

[hombre_fatal]

Assuming blocks themselves are never childish. Jordan Peterson is on the list and he doesn't even use the site: https://bsky.app/profile/jordanbpeterson.bsky.social

[arp242]

It has an "Impersonation" tag: "Pretending to be someone else without permission." Dunno if that's accurate though.

But let's be real: Jordan B. Peterson on Bluesky is not going to be a different Jordan B. Peterson than he is anywhere else. If you don't want to interact with Jordan B. Peterson on e.g. Twitter, then you probably don't want to interact with him on Bluesky either.

[taeric]

To an extent, I agree. In particular, I will not seek out that guy.

However, feels virtue signal like to block someone that isn't there. Might as well block "random jerk." What is the value of blocking people by name that may not exist?

[rsynnott]

He likely just appears on a lot of imported Twitter blocklists.

[taeric]

Ah. That is a fair point.

[TrueSlacker0]

Seems odd to be one of the most blocked with zero posts

[winwang]

There was a script I once saw for Twitter where it blocked all users within some follower/followee radius of a set group of people.

For public discourse, I wonder what the right level of agreeable "echo-chambering" is.

[mulmen]

I don’t use Bluesky. How is it childish? If Peterson has no presence then how is a block possible? If a block requires presence then blocking Jordan Peterson seems like a reasonable thing for a person to do.

[ronsor]

It's not even the real Jordan Peterson apparently.