mastodon is far, far, far more interesting than bluesky
this article is literally an ad piece
[Removed by author due to stupidity of comment]
The author definitely is on the fediverse: @mmasnick@mastodon.social
The article may be fairly positive about Bluesky but how Bluesky separates out various functions like feeds, moderation/labeling, and data storage/portability is a definite advantage that I think should be discussed.
If you think Mike Masnick does not spend enough time on the Fediverse, you do not spend enough time on the Fediverse.
@romp_2_door @psychothumbs i'm curious what makes you think it's "an ad." There are plenty of things in the piece that might be useful for thinking about for ActivityPub/fediverse.
What they call moderation is just muting posts so that you don't see them. No thanks. I don't want bigots hidden in a space I use, I want them absent.
That's impossible though.
You have them everywhere including on Lemmy.
I want them absent. Just because they aren't doesn't lessen the desire for them to be.
We all want them absent. But then it sort of defeats the point of OPs post saying that BlueSky is filled with bigots when the reality is everywhere has them.
They're not on my instances or any instance I federate with.
Just because you are not aware doesn't mean they don't exist.
Reading into blahaj.zoje more, plenty of queer folk are friendly and supportive, but plenty are also pieces of shit. Sometimes you may also not realize if you create an echo chamber what is acceptable and what bleeds into extremist rhetoric.
I don't give a crap about "echo chambers". I give a crap about creating a safe environment for a group of folk that are actively under attack.
And that means getting rid of the bigots, not just hiding them
I get wanting a safe space from persecution.
But echo chambers are dangerous and can really distort your reality. I personally find going from a safe space/echo chamber to reality very jarring and much more conflicting than from a relatively safe space with some conflict to reality.
By shutting it all out I'd argue you are risking hurting yourself unless you can guarantee a safe space in every aspect of life which is very difficult.
Echo chambers aren't that bad. I don't surround myself with people and things I like because the ones I don't like are going to hurt me, I do it because I don't like them and my life is too short to waste with their nonsense.
But echo chambers are dangerous
Not as dangerous as the hate trans people face every single day from the government, from media and from society at large.
People need a space where they can let their guard down. Creating that space is my goal.
The sad truth is, no space ever lets us completely let our guard down, but we get as close as we can.
unless you can guarantee a safe space in every aspect of life which is very difficult.
Communities trying to make spaces as safe as possible isn't some slippery slope. This is either disingenuous or ignorant of the reality we face as trans folk.
There are no truly safe spaces for us. Even our safe spaces aren't completely safe, because bad faith folk do their best to make it that way. Yet even so, many of us benefit from spaces that are actively inclusive, and remove bigots. Appeals to slippery slopes, or implications that we simply don't understand how looking after our own needs is somehow bad don't change our lived reality
Not as dangerous as the hate trans people face every single day from the government, from media and from society at large.
Not really comparable to ethnic\religious\racial hate anywhere in the civilized world.
OK, I seem to answer lots of your comments not touching the actual core of the subject.
See, "per user" moderation is good because everybody's idea of bigotry is subjective. Bad because it's reactive, as you said, which means it takes effort from the user.
"Per community" is sometimes acceptable, though it always gets ugly over time. I've been a forum mod from time to time in the late 00s, I know what I'm talking about. If you can believe me, I stop being unhinged when handed opportunity to ban people.
"Per instance" is bullshit.
See, this has already been solved for email with client-side spam filters.
Or, with social media, you can in theory have kill-lists (for users and everything they post, or for separate posts), and subscribe to those. So, just like you want, somebody bans a user and everybody subscribed to that kill-list stops seeing them. No effort required, and without compromising others' freedom to read.
I've been building and developing communities, queer and otherwise for decades. I'm also trans, and live it first hand.
The per user approach puts a cost on each and every user, and that cost can sometimes be too much for vulnerable folk dealing with harassment. Blocking the bigot with a throw away account after being exposed to the bigotry is pointless, because the account was going to be abandoned anyway, and you've already been exposed to the raw hate.
It makes it impossible to just have fun and enjoy your social media experience when you're always waiting for the next bigot to drop it.
Instance level blocking resolves a lot of that.
Your theory of what will work just doesn't cut it for many vulnerable folk, and it's not going to start cutting it just because you want to debate the topic.
The per user approach puts a cost on each and every user,
I've described how it doesn't.
Blocking the bigot with a throw away account after being exposed to the bigotry is pointless, because the account was going to be abandoned anyway, and you’ve already been exposed to the raw hate.
Which doesn't change anything as compared to instance-wide or community-wide moderation. And if you mean that you only want to see approved accounts, that can be done without instance-wide or community-wide moderation too just as well.
Instance level blocking resolves a lot of that.
Nothing fundamentally prevents you from ignoring a whole instance. Or, from what I described with subscribing to kill-lists, that instance being blocked as a whole in that kill-list.
You people have gotten so used to commercial bullshit that you don't realize how much can be done with simple things.
Your theory of what will work just doesn’t cut it for many vulnerable folk, and it’s not going to start cutting it just because you want to debate the topic.
It obviously does, because what I've described works exactly the same for the user, except for them having a choice.
Nothing fundamentally prevents you from ignoring a whole instance.
The issue is that users aren't "instance based" in the same way they are on the fediverse. On the fediverse, instances are communities of like minded folk, so all of the bigots hang out in bigot friendly instances, which I simply defederate from. If they join non bigot friendly instances, they get removed
On Bluesky, bigots don't belong to a particular instance. They just pop up with throw away accounts and have to be dealt with, one by one.
You people have gotten so used to commercial bullshit that you don’t realize how much can be done with simple things.
I've been on the fediverse longer than you my friend. I don't use centralised social media of any type.
The issue isn't that I "don't realise", it's that what I want from a social media platform isn't something that Bluesky offers. You want different things to me. Arguing at me as if you can make me want the same things as you is a waste of both of our times.
Bluesky doesn't give me what I need, and it's ultimately that simple
They just pop up with throw away accounts and have to be dealt with, one by one.
So a person to the kill-list of which you are subscribed does that, playing the role of a mod. There may be a few such people with their kill-lists, united by logical OR. You don't have to do anything.
It's just a better solution for what you claim to want.
Just say honestly that you want to ban some people in bunches and feel that it's your bunch doing it and not you alone.
So a person to the kill-list of which you are subscribed does that, playing the role of a mod
Yep. After the troll has trolled.
It's reactive moderation, which leads to a shit experience for vulnerable people if that's how the majority of moderation needs are met.
Because fediverse accounts are instance based, and instances have their own rules and communities, bigots tend to cluster with other bigots, and defederating those instances means that proactive moderation ensures that most of the hate coming from bigots never needs to be moderated, because it never arrives in the first place.
Anyway, it seems from the rest of your post that you aren't interested in engaging genuinely, so that's that...
Yep. After the troll has trolled.
No.
It’s reactive moderation, which leads to a shit experience for vulnerable people if that’s how the majority of moderation needs are met.
It can be proactive just as well. You'd subscribe to a whitelist instead of a blacklist. Simple.
Because fediverse accounts are instance based
This doesn't have any mandatory connection to fediverse. Humans build systems.
Anyway, it seems from the rest of your post that you aren’t interested in engaging genuinely, so that’s that…
So finally the only real argument a snowflake has.
So finally the only real argument a snowflake has.
And a ban for you
You can kick bigots off a Bluesky PDS.
But letting everyone label accounts and posts and run feeds of moderation advice is a lot quicker at booting someone from the virtual space than waiting around for someone to come and decide that yes, so-and-so really has broken BigPDSHost policy and shall be deleted. It's also a great way to find who you want to boot.
Right, but it's reactive and on a per user basis.
and on a per user basis.
Exactly, because you are nobody to decide for others what they want and don't want to read.
That's literally how moderation on Bluesky works... You choose the people you want to moderate and curate your feed...
No, delegating it consciously being able to change it every moment is fine.
Like, each user is individually kicked off the PDS in reaction to some bad thing they did? Or labeling is reactive in that it labels bad stuff already posted, and each user has to pick labelers to listen to themselves?
I'm not sure if Bluesky's front-end defaults to using some particular labelers. I know there's some moderation going on for you as soon as you log in, done by someone.
But yes, each user has to choose whose moderation decisions they want to use, and they can't rely on everyone they can see also seeing exactly the same space they themselves are seeing. But I'm not sure it's possible or even desirable to get rid of the requirement/ability to choose your mods. I should be able to be in a community that has mods I trust, and the community chatting to itself and determining that so-and-so is a great mod who we should all listen to, and then all listening to them, sounds like a good idea to me.
Being able to see and talk to people who aren't in the same space I'm in might not be as good?
Can confirm, I've had issues with the pieces of shit before, although never on the fediverse.
While sometimes it's impossible to make sure that an environment is completely free of bigots (or any sort of bad faith actor), if you don't get rid of the ones that you see, they'll eventually take over the space.
And "getting rid of them" doesn't mean to simply hiding them from your sight (what effectively Bluesky does). It's just a nest of cockroaches, you know? It's still breeding inside your wall, even if you don't see it.
The best type of ad is one that passes for something else, like journalism.
their system rests on a few lynch pins... the relays. guess who is going to run those. hell, their own diagram has one 'entryway' into their system..
federation feels like an afterthought, and clearly not fully decentralized.
i would argue lemmy is one of the most interesting. this might have been the most interesting 18 months ago
I find the stackable layers interesting, but I like the decentralization of the fediverse. I’m way outside my realm of expertise here, but would it be possible for a platform to adopt both?
yeah theres a guy trying to bridge them right now.. kinda po'd some of the bluesky peeps.
e. maybe this: https://docs.bsky.app/blog/feature-bridgyfed ?
Neat, I’ll have to look into it. Thanks!
Why did it irritate folks at bluesky?
Seems like it was mostly Mastodon people irritated The main issue is that it was opt-out and not opt-in:
https://github.com/snarfed/bridgy-fed/issues/835
https://github.com/snarfed/bridgy-fed/issues?q=opt-out
I don't think the bridge provides the moderation features of Bluesky though.
I heard that interview and have been casually digging into ActivityPub.
BSKY does account for a few more situations that ActivityPub currently doesn’t.
One is pluggable algorithms. This way you’re not tied to one kind of ordering in your feed.
Another is layered moderation so you can adjust automated vs human moderation policies.
And the last one is how to transport all your stuff to a different server under several different lockout scenarios. I’m still not clear which one’s better if your server just disappears or gets locked out.
In the long run, though, there has to be just one service. You can’t have Mastodon, Bsky, and Threads each with different functionality and incompatible islands.
Enter Bluesky, which remains the most interesting experiment in social media. It has recently both opened up federation, but even more interestingly it has abstracted out the moderation layer (along with open sourcing tooling for people to use). This means that anyone can provide moderation services, and users can pick who they want to moderate their experience.
It may be difficult to wrap your head around how this works and why this matters, but I’m going to try to break it down with this article.
Yes, you can say that I’m biased. A little over four years ago, Jack Dorsey announced that he was going to fund a little project called Bluesky to build a decentralized and open social media protocol, based in part on my Protocols, Not Platforms paper.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
