Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I downloaded all 1.6M posts on Bluesky

worthdoingbadly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 294 posts

Re: I downloaded all 1.6M posts on Bluesky

#231

Post by criddell »

bombcar wrote: post #28
areoform wrote: post #24

Bluesky is absurd in both its small village feel and the breadth of people who post there and you can interact with. It's the same vibe as very early clubhouse. Broke artists next to philanthropists.

All invite-only early-access things that get hot are like it; once they go to general availability they go to shit, it seems.

Maybe it should stay invite-only?

I’m not on and am waiting for an invite, but if opening the gates means it ends up being a place I don’t want to be, what’s the point?

Re: I downloaded all 1.6M posts on Bluesky

#232

Post by Gigachad »

mort96 wrote: post #215
Gigachad wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It works pretty well on email. When I mark a user as spam or set up a filter rule, all of their content goes direct to spam or even deleted if I want. Doesn't bother me at all. Email has also dealt with the spam issue mostly. If you blast me with too many emails, you get put on a spammer blacklist and servers will just drop the content without delivering it. It also isn't a crime to be unwillingly sent illegal conten…

Email has not solved the spam issue. I regularly get obvious spam email in my inbox, and legit mail still goes in the junk folder from time to time – with gmail. Plus, the automated spam filtering systems make it practically impossible to host your own e-mail, and any self-hosted email will have even worse issues with inbound spam than gmail does. Spam is at the core of what makes email a terrible example of a federa…

That's irrelevant, automated blocking is a different discussion. This is about if it matters that the content hit your server or client and then was deleted because you had the user blocked, or if it's better to have a centralized system where the blocked users messages never make it to your client.

From the users perspective I can't really see any difference here.

Re: I downloaded all 1.6M posts on Bluesky

#233

Post by zimpenfish »

Gigachad wrote: post #121
zimpenfish wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> User A can have his client filter them out locally We've been trying that with email and spam for the last 3 decades and I've got to tell you the results are not good. > prior to when they'd otherwise be displayed. A has to download the harassment from B just to then filter it locally? Seems like you're putting the onus on A here to do the work. What happens if B sends enough to DOS A's link? Or sends CSAM and now…

It works pretty well on email. When I mark a user as spam or set up a filter rule, all of their content goes direct to spam or even deleted if I want. Doesn't bother me at all. Email has also dealt with the spam issue mostly. If you blast me with too many emails, you get put on a spammer blacklist and servers will just drop the content without delivering it. It also isn't a crime to be unwillingly sent illegal conten…

> It works pretty well on email.

As someone who has been running mail servers for 20 years, no, it does not. I'm sure other mail admins will agree.

Re: I downloaded all 1.6M posts on Bluesky

#234

Post by zimpenfish »

debugnik wrote: post #129
zimpenfish wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> User A can have his client filter them out locally We've been trying that with email and spam for the last 3 decades and I've got to tell you the results are not good. > prior to when they'd otherwise be displayed. A has to download the harassment from B just to then filter it locally? Seems like you're putting the onus on A here to do the work. What happens if B sends enough to DOS A's link? Or sends CSAM and now…

> We've been trying that with email and spam Aren't we talking about blocking and muting known user handles? This is easy, the spam problem would be identifying which handles to block. > What happens if B sends enough to DOS A's link? Or sends CSAM and now A is committing a crime just by downloading the content? What happens if B does the same before A had a chance to block them? And why would A's client download the…

> Aren't we talking about blocking and muting known user handles?

This is the same as blocking known spam domains and IP blocks in email. They just switch to a new one. Which is best dealt with at the remote end since the server has a better chance of being able to identify new accounts which are related to blocked ones - Instagram even suggests this for you when you block someone: "...and any future accounts they may create". Having to do this in A's client is much more difficult because it lacks the information that would be useful.

> What happens if B does the same before A had a chance to block them?

A fair point.

Re: I downloaded all 1.6M posts on Bluesky

#236

Post by 0xDEF »

One of the main reasons I'm still on twitter is because of how you can mute certain topics/words and accounts. Extensively using that has turned twitter into a source of learning and knowledge for me. I have also used uBlock to block the trending sidebar.

Re: I downloaded all 1.6M posts on Bluesky

#237

Post by vidarh »

jug wrote: post #53
SeanAnderson wrote: post #22

I would just like to say that I am excited for Bluesky to exist. It might go poorly, but I'm unwilling to write off weird attempts at innovation before the technology has had a chance to evolve in the wild. I've seen several posts lately that have made me feel like the HN sentiment towards Bluesky is negative. Throwing them under the bus for the domain validation mistake. Hatred at commercialization of a protocol. Qu…

I'm also trying to stay positive. In that spirit, I really enjoy: 1. The very good documentation this early in the project! This is not common. 2. The very rapid response developer team that does it live! Once the combination of surprisingly rapid membership growth + no blocks blew up and it became an urgent moderation feature, they had blocks within weeks despite the technically challenging task due to the kind of f…

If they are truly open, it'll get bridged to the Fediverse the way people started bridging to Twitter (but were shut down because Twitter doesn't want to be open), and anything good about the protocols will be adopted whole or on part and subsumed.

Which to me makes it just stupid of them to start from scratch rather than starting with interop with the Fediverse and optionally making breaking changes and/or bridging themselves.

E.g. the ability to migrate data more easily is great, but also easily accommodated by a combination of adding a new URI scheme and provide rewriting proxies to federate with ActivityPub instances that don't support it.

It feels like a lot of NIH and desire to be in control that I feel are at odds with building an open ecosystem.

Re: I downloaded all 1.6M posts on Bluesky

#238

Post by vidarh »

mcv wrote: post #96
snickerbockers wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TBH I haven't paid much attention to it, but as somebody who was already using Mastodon as their primary social network for years before Musk took over, I'm not sure I understand what niche BlueSky is even supposed to fill that ActivityPub/Fediverse doesn't already fill. It just seems like a bunch of guys who got ousted from their jobs trying to invent a new commercial social network. And one of the things that needs…

I'm especially interested in what their new protocol offers that ActivityPub doesn't. There are more protocols than just ActivityPub, like Zot6 which focuses a lot more on nomadic identity than ActivityPub does. I'd love to know what it is that makes BlueSky's protocol better and therefore worth adding. Because if it doesn't do anything that other protocols already do, then what's the point?

If you want nomadic identity, a tiny tweak to expect ActivityPub instances to support a distributed content addressable URI scheme (optionally via proxies) is almost all that is needed, so if there turns out to be a lot of demand for it, it'll get added.

Re: I downloaded all 1.6M posts on Bluesky

#240

Post by brvsft »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #219
brvsft wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> no one would give a single shit if it were created by some unknown person Sure, general-purpose social networks need a large reach to be of value. This is not insight.

Here's the reply to your dogpile comment. I hope you feel validated.
Post reply on HN