Live data from Hacker News

Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

blog.paulbohm.com

61–70 of 109 posts

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#61
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'what's a server?'

Is this actually a problem? I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people who use the internet have a good enough idea of what a server is that even if they're dead wrong about how one works it isn't terminology that would be confusing to them.

Vast vast majority don't even know what their router is, let alone a server.

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#62
post #18

I can't find it so I gotta ask: does Blue Sky integrates with mastodon instances and support ActivityPub?

Nope, AT Protocol is not compatible with ActivityPub.

But what are the differences? Does Blue Sky use another protocol just to be deliberately incompatible with existing federated networks?

Could mastodon instances theoretically be made compatible with AT Protocol anyway, and federate through both it and ActivityPub?

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#63
post #57
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's Twitter, but set up like email where you have multiple servers, but they can all talk to each other" That wasn't very hard at all.

'what's a server?'

The internet (or cloud, if you prefer, mostly the same thing) is just a bunch of computers connected to each other. "Servers" are the big ones in the middle that handle stuff like email and youtube videos

this is not THAT hard yall

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#64
post #37

I don’t understand how this is going to take off if no one is going to make money from this. A server can’t really charge its users. I and most people would probably not pay to help support a server. Twitter works because most people who actually interact on it don’t pay. And the source of Twitter’s woes is honestly because the company has never been profitable (unlike Facebook, Google and so on which did). Also, req…

> I don’t understand how this is going to take off if no one is going to make money from this.

I'd pay something for it. The way the author describes it I would have a 'Small-World' server. I'd be willing to pay $5-10 per month to connect that to a 'Big-World' server. After that I'd expect the costs to scale with the size of my 'Small-World' server. As long as that's based on resource consumption rather than some kind of per-user scheme I think it would work fairly well.

The biggest issue for me would be setting up and maintaining a server. I don't really want to do that and a hosted service for it probably skews towards costs that are more than I'd be willing to pay just to be connected to the network.

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#65
post #9
post #6

There's a lot of consideration of if we could, and previous little of if we should. Unmoderated sites inevitably become breading grounds for harassment and worse, especially as more mainstream platforms get better at driving this content away. I would be terrified to live in a world where kiwifarms and its ilk cannot be shut down

OP here. I don't expect these servers to become unmoderated. I think a lot of them will moderate as strictly or stricter than Twitter currently is.

This is something I said, but didn't explain well in the thread about Bluesky using domains as handles. You did a much better job of explaining it in your article. Being able to adjust the moderation rules to fit specific scenarios is useful.

I also think the use of domains could have a significant impact on the quality of online discourse because building a good reputation on a domain and having that transferable anywhere on the internet is a lot more valuable than a handle that's only usable within the silo of a single company.

Sub-domains add another layer where the owner of the top level domain has incentive to make sure they're not bringing bad actors onto the network because moderation could be enacted against the base domain, not just individual sub-domains.

Domain based attestation could also drive significant change. Imagine a system where spending money at a reputable company gave you a digital token / receipt that you could attribute to a domain (aka identity) as a way to attest to that domain being a good participant.

The attestation wouldn't cost anything beyond what you're already spending, but it's valuable because it demonstrates you're spending real money somewhere and attributing it to an identity. That doesn't scale well for bad actors running millions of bots because someone like me might have thousands of dollars of spending per year that I can attribute to my reputation or the reputation of someone I've had a good interaction with and bots can't throw that kind of money away. IE: It's a good indicator that a domain / identity isn't a bot, spammer, jerk, etc..

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#66
post #19
post #6

There's a lot of consideration of if we could, and previous little of if we should. Unmoderated sites inevitably become breading grounds for harassment and worse, especially as more mainstream platforms get better at driving this content away. I would be terrified to live in a world where kiwifarms and its ilk cannot be shut down

I assume you’re terrified, then, because said farm hasn’t been shut down and apparently won’t be.

I mean yeah, it's a scary time to be a queer person. Lots of our rights and protections are under attack now in ways they weren't 5 years ago. I hadn't heard that kiwi farms was back up, that's deeply disappointing.

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#67
post #6

There's a lot of consideration of if we could, and previous little of if we should. Unmoderated sites inevitably become breading grounds for harassment and worse, especially as more mainstream platforms get better at driving this content away. I would be terrified to live in a world where kiwifarms and its ilk cannot be shut down

Have you considered that maybe de-plaforming people on the fringe and forcing them into their own private silos actually ends up boosting their message? When you try to be the goody two-shoes and block anything and everything that could potentially be offensive to someone you just make controversial opinions more intriguing. At least I want to see what the big fuss was about and determine myself it such banishment wa…

Deplatforming people doesn't boost their message though. You don't get the Streisand effect when its 1000 trolls instead of one famous person. Also the free market of ideas just hasn't proven effective at stopping harassment and worse. There's nothing illogical about what you've said, but the real world data just doesn't support your conclusions.

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#68
post #9
post #6

There's a lot of consideration of if we could, and previous little of if we should. Unmoderated sites inevitably become breading grounds for harassment and worse, especially as more mainstream platforms get better at driving this content away. I would be terrified to live in a world where kiwifarms and its ilk cannot be shut down

OP here. I don't expect these servers to become unmoderated. I think a lot of them will moderate as strictly or stricter than Twitter currently is.

Oh interesting, so all the content is out there but each user gets to decide how what they see is moderated?
Post reply on HN