@seabass@social.seabass.systems @neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk I think reply controls of the kind that's actually implementable without changing how every implementation does replies (that is, just reject them locally) are already partially possible on Pleroma/Akkoma using MRF (the Message Rewrite Facility). Rejecting replies to a certain user is certainly possible with an MRF filter, the only thing missing is a way for the user to specify this per-post.

@seabass @neil Reply controls would require changing how replies work to make them all go via the original poster's server. Currently they go directly to mentioned users (and the replier's followers), and the original poster's server can't do anything about that except reject them locally. This would also allow for fixing follower-only replies (so they go to the original poster's followers rather than to the replier's followers, which results in people seeing random fragments of conversations if they follow only some parties) and making replies federate to all users who see the original post without the need to backfill via non-standard c2s protocols (like fedifetcher does), but good luck getting everyone to implement that.

As for how Mastodon's quote controls work: they kind-of don't. I'm on Akkoma, which has had quote posts long before Mastodon and does not implement Mastodon's quote controls. Nothing prevents me (and nothing can prevent me) from quoting a quote-restricted Mastodon post, although it will (probably, I haven't tested) only appear as an ordinary post with a link to the quoted post on Mastodon, and I think also won't show up under the original post on Mastodon servers (but will on other Akkoma servers and every implementation that doesn't implement Mastodon's quote controls).

@seabass@social.seabass.systems @sunflowerinrain@mastodon.online @syhr@social.coop I intend to try getting an X in my passport using section 46 of the Data Protection Act (the UK's implementation of GDPR article 16, the right to rectification).

The controller must, if so requested by a data subject, rectify without undue delay inaccurate personal data relating to the data subject.

I don't see why this wouldn't apply to the gender marker in passports - it's definitely personal data. And it doesn't cost anything to submit a GDPR request to HMPO (and complain to the ICO if that fails) so I might as well try (although I thought of this idea in 2024 and I still haven't actually done it...)

@mynameistillian@plush.city @syhr@social.coop According to the ICAO standard, the sex field is mandatory but countries can just put X (or < in the MRZ, which is also the filler character) for unspecified:

Where an issuing State or organization does not want to identify the sex, the filler character (<) shall be used in
this field in the MRZ and an X in this field in the VIZ.

So there's nothing preventing them from effectively abolishing gender markers on passports by just putting X for everyone (which they should do)