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

We’re receiving about 3,000 reports/hour

bsky.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 274 posts

Re: We’re receiving about 3,000 reports/hour

#81

Post by nirav72 »

Waterluvian wrote: post #54
paxys wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AT Protocol already accounts for this. There will eventually be community-built content labelers and classifers that you can subscribe to to rank and moderate your own feed however you want.

I have a feeling that this is going to create a weird thing of some magnitude where accounts end up on popular blacklists for poor reasons and have no recourse. I’m concerned that in time it might develop into zealous communities of samethink where you have to mind any slightly dissenting opinion or you’ll get blacklisted. I think what I’m thinking about is essentially that judges cannot be replaced by community opin…

> that in time it might develop into zealous communities of samethink

yeah, this is reddit in a nutshell. Anyone that pointed out that Harris is going to lose the election because of x reasons was ridiculed. Among other things.

Re: We’re receiving about 3,000 reports/hour

#82

Post by sojournerc »

voat wrote: post #13

I'm interested to see how Bluesky ends up handling bad actors in the long-term. Will they have the resources to keep up? Or will it become polluted like the other large platforms. Also, if a part of their business model will be based off selling algorithmic feeds, won't that mean more spam is actually good for their bottom line because they'll sell more algorithmic feeds that counter the spam?

Relevant username. Voat definitely fell victim to bad actors.

Are you a creator/founder?

Re: We’re receiving about 3,000 reports/hour

#83

Post by erulabs »

almatabata wrote: post #48
erulabs wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> I am very okay with not seeing CSAM, but your argument doesn’t hold water. By this you mean that its very easy to define a clear set of rules for moderation?

In the case of CSAM, yes. In the case of other material? No. Again, I side heavily on the side of freedom of speech, but the argument that limiting speech and limiting some specific kinds of widely condemned speech are orthogonal does not stand up to the most basic scrutiny.

Re: We’re receiving about 3,000 reports/hour

#85

Post by darkerside »

VancouverMan wrote: post #72
luckylion wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the moderators working for the big social networks have a terrible job and often see the worst the internet has to offer. Who is going to do that job as a volunteer? Or is that expected to be solved by technology? Hard to imagine them achieving what Google, Facebook etc could not reliably.

Some people seem to get immense satisfaction and pleasure out of censoring other people online. It's something I've seen time and time again, in a wide variety of discussions forums, for decades now. Such people will happily do it for free, and they're willing to dedicate many hours per day to it, too. I don't understand their motivation(s), but perhaps it simply gives them a sense of power, control, or influence tha…

Praying he doesn't take this the wrong way, but perhaps /u/dang would be so kind as to weigh in? I don't equate what he does on a daily basis to censoring, but I'm certain it constitutes a part of the job (after all, this is the Internet, and I'm sure there's all manner of trash making an appearance on occasion). Furthermore, I would posit that there's a bit of overlap between censorship and moderation -- even excellent moderation -- although I welcome any nuance I'm missing on this topic.

Moreover, while I hope he is compensated well enough, I imagine this was initially, if not any longer, a job that demanded effort disproportionate to the monetary reward. What would keep someone interested in such a job and naturally driven to perform it well?

Coming from a place of curiosity, meaning no offense, and happy to let this comment slip quietly away to a back room to sit alone if that's what it merits.

Re: We’re receiving about 3,000 reports/hour

#86

Post by agoodusername63 »

citizenkeen wrote: post #42
hipadev23 wrote: post #6

Due to how easy it is to setup accounts and post on Bluesky, it’s likely many of the same operatives behind the propaganda and bot armies on Twitter are now pushing the same vitriolic content, and triggering these reports. If they can negatively impact Bluesky at a critical moment, it’ll reduce the flow of users who will quickly surmise “oh this is just like twitter”

This underestimates the effect of Bluesky’s culture of “block and move on”. There are curated block lists you can subscribe to. Individual communities do a pretty good job of shutting down toxicity they don’t want to engage with.

It shares the same problem that Twitter had years ago back when it supported API blocklists.

Everybody you're blocking is at the whims of the blocklist owner, and it didn't take long for those people to go insane and use their lists as a tool for their own personal unrelated crusades.

Bluesky is already starting to experience this from a few I saw going around

Re: We’re receiving about 3,000 reports/hour

#87

Post by sailfast »

jmyeet wrote: post #33

This is the big challenge of any platform for user-generated content and it's incredibly difficult to scale, do well and be economical. A bit like CAP, it's almost like "pick 2". You will have to deal with: - CSAM - Lower-degree offensive material eg Youtube had an issue a few years ago where (likely) predators were commenting timestamps on inocuous videos featuring children or on Tiktok videos with children get save…

Agreed - moderation at scale is a tough and expensive problem to get right.

That said, I wonder how much these days it would take to get it working well enough using existing LLMs. I'm not sure how much you would need to do that wasn't a bit off the shelf if you were mostly trying to keep your safe harbor protections / avoid regulator scorn.

Re: We’re receiving about 3,000 reports/hour

#88

Post by astrange »

darkerside wrote: post #85
VancouverMan wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people seem to get immense satisfaction and pleasure out of censoring other people online. It's something I've seen time and time again, in a wide variety of discussions forums, for decades now. Such people will happily do it for free, and they're willing to dedicate many hours per day to it, too. I don't understand their motivation(s), but perhaps it simply gives them a sense of power, control, or influence tha…

Praying he doesn't take this the wrong way, but perhaps /u/dang would be so kind as to weigh in? I don't equate what he does on a daily basis to censoring, but I'm certain it constitutes a part of the job (after all, this is the Internet, and I'm sure there's all manner of trash making an appearance on occasion). Furthermore, I would posit that there's a bit of overlap between censorship and moderation -- even excell…

> Furthermore, I would posit that there's a bit of overlap between censorship and moderation -- even excellent moderation -- although I welcome any nuance I'm missing on this topic.

You aren't missing anything. Many people have oppositional defiance disorder and have never used an unmoderated forum; they are completely unusable because they're full of spam.

Re: We’re receiving about 3,000 reports/hour

#89

Post by astrange »

ranger_danger wrote: post #3
yapyap wrote: post #2

“ Excessive moderation is a barrier to open and robust debate, ultimately undermining the diversity of perspectives that make meaningful discourse possible. Supressing dissenting opinions will lead to an echo chamber effect. Would you like to join me an upcoming campaign to restore Europe? Deus vult!” ah social media, some people are truly as dumb as rocks

Not to mention all the people extremely confused over what "CSAM" is seemingly without having the ability to google it.

I think your life is better off if you don't know what that means, so feel free not to look it up.

Re: We’re receiving about 3,000 reports/hour

#90

Post by moogly »

bdangubic wrote: post #52
luckylion wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the moderators working for the big social networks have a terrible job and often see the worst the internet has to offer. Who is going to do that job as a volunteer? Or is that expected to be solved by technology? Hard to imagine them achieving what Google, Facebook etc could not reliably.

you really think Google/Facebook/… can’t do it reliably? :-)

As an example, Facebook has a sordid history of leaving actual snuff movies up for days.
Post reply on HN