@supakaity @ada @cody glad that you replied on a similiar post to mine...

There is one side on having those advisory mechanisms and beeing able to use them and there is the others like having an outdated instance, instances that wont use it or instances that those features simply not exist.
Im very worried about such whishes since it is hard to explain that to users and it is impossible to enforce it on the whole network which also lead to (i wouldnt say it like that but i dont know how to express it better) false advertising of features.

> We will of course highlight (or lowlight rather?) bad actor’s actions in the thread view and probably add options to toggle them hidden, collapsed or shown (depending on user preferences), on the main instance
That could be difficult... that would mean that a big bunch of software would be marked as bad actor although they can do nothing about it.

> and maybe not even include their actions in the conversation list for onward federation.
removing it from the conversation could make things worse and tbh, im not sure what you mean with removing it for onward federation...
take a look at misskey, as far as i know, misskey dont even advertise other replies to an instance so fetching / receiving other posts isnt something you can control in the current version of the protocol. To enforce rules, the owner instance would need to act as a proxy for the whole thread...
In my big answer I also referred to quotes, it is technically not reliably possible to receive a quote in your own instance at all.... So the whole topic questions your thoughts if bad actors should be marked accordingly... Once apart from the fact that instance blocks exist, who would appear in this list? Instances that are not compatible and are not conscious bad actors and one possibly cant do nothing against it, since even when a instance uses the same software, they could be on a different version which handles certain things different and are therefore marked as a bad actor... In such cases it would become to a very toxic feature then.

> But really, enforcement is not the point at all. At the moment there’s no way for the author to even tell us any of this stuff so that good actor’s can act good.
But thats the big issue, even enabling the authors to define such things could lead to false assumptions and one need to explain every author how the system works in the first place...

Moreover, it has not yet been discussed to what extent the answers to a thread should take over these flags. I can well imagine that especially the restriction that not all can answer is generally very difficult. You would either have to accept that the replies have their own/different values for the flags, or you would have to share whole follower/blocklists to be able to restrict a post really cleanly.