Re: WoN Re: Public consultation on EU digital principles

David Chadwick wrote:

> Regardless of what you call them (deny, black, block) they are still
> flawed and should not be relied upon as they are usually trivial to bypass.

An ability to "bypass" a black-list is only relevant in an application
which relies on such lists being complete. However, even incomplete lists
can provide value in many contexts. For instance, some authority might
construct a list of "members of the press." However, I might wish to
comment on that list by saying that I consider some of them to be more
advocates clothed in the trappings of the press rather than being actual
press. In this case, I might build a list whose members are those whose
"pressness" I think should be denied, even if they have credentials issued
by some otherwise accepted authority. As long as I don't declare that my
blacklist is complete, some folk might find the list to be useful. Others
might ignore it. So be it.

In general, I think there should be a well-known mechanism for commenting
on claims that are made or implied by some other issuers' VCs. A
"blacklist" is one way to do so. Mechanisms with greater expressive
richness would be appreciated as well.

How can or should I comment on a VC issued by someone else? What mechanisms
are provided to do so?

bob wyman