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

91–100 of 274 posts

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

#91

Post by astrange »

nirav72 wrote: post #81
Waterluvian wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't read too much into something happening. That was about the narrowest possible loss and it doesn't validate most reasons it could've happened.

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

#92

Post by beeflet »

ranger_danger wrote: post #7
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”

How would they make it harder / reduce bots without sacrificing privacy (such as SMS/ID verification/etc.)? I think if you can realistically solve that you'd be a millionaire already.

hashcash

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

#93

Post by knome »

agoodusername63 wrote: post #86
citizenkeen wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

if they had a rule in the autoblock subscription that if a name appears in 3 or more (configurable) subscribed moderation lists it gets autoblocked, then users could stop following bad actors and change what moderation lists they use over time with less large impact to their experience. if you see messages from someone and they're on one of your block lists, you might reconsider the list. if they're on 2 you might consider personally blocking them, and if on 3+ you'd never see them. make blocks require a reason as well that the user will see alongside their block.

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

#94

Post by [deleted] »

nicce wrote: post #55
DrillShopper wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool, if you can require them for every possible interaction on a platform but even that violates privacy if you have one universal value that ties it all together (the identifier of the specific TPM). It's just the phone number/email issue but tied to hardware. If you think these things won't leak and allow bad actors to tie your accounts across services then I have some lovely real estate in Florida you may be inte…

> It also appears that resetting a fTPM works around this since it fully resets the TPM. Even if it didn't then people buying used CPUs could find that they're banned from games that they've never even played or installed on their system before It depends how the TPM utilization was applied in practice. The initial manufacturer key (Endorsement Key) is hardcoded and unextractable. All the long-lived keys are derived…

[deleted]

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

#96

Post by QuantumG »

jabroni_salad wrote: post #18
ranger_danger wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would they make it harder / reduce bots without sacrificing privacy (such as SMS/ID verification/etc.)? I think if you can realistically solve that you'd be a millionaire already.

this IMO is why groupchat is best social network. Anything with more than 20 people doesnt go on my phone. sorry marketers.

What are you doing here then?

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

#97

Post by beeflet »

bigbones wrote: post #40

I think the central nature of moderation needs fixed, rather than moderation itself. Real world moderation doesn't work by having a central censor, it involves like-minded people identifying into a group and having their access to conversation enabled by that identification. When the conversation no longer suits the group, the person is no longer welcome. I think a technical model of this could be made to work. Looke…

Yeah, I think friend-to-friend (F2F) networks are the most natural and take the most reasonable approach to spam resistance.

I don't think badges will work, because who assigns the badges? Friend groups IRL are generally not led by a single tyrannical leader. You just end up making a forum with a single owner.

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

#98

Post by Vortigaunt »

agoodusername63 wrote: post #86
citizenkeen wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It'd be neat if you could create conditional blocklists. Like only whoever X person AND Y person block will be blocked from my feed. And so on...

I don't think that'd solve the problem, but it would marginally help (and should be better than the status quo)

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

#99

Post by beeflet »

almatabata wrote: post #56
bakugo wrote: post #49

The audience Bluesky is currently cultivating is the kind of audience that mashes the report button every time they see something they disagree with, so this isn't surprising. If the user base actually keeps growing at a steady rate, I don't see how they'll get the resources to deal with so many reports (especially since they don't seem to have a plan to monetize the site yet) without resorting to the usual low-effor…

> without resorting to the usual low-effort solutions, such as using some sort of algorithm that bans automatically based on keywords or number of reports. Or you prioritize reports from accounts with a proven track record. If I consistently report posts that clearly violate the rules why shouldn't my report count more than an account that just got created? If you consistently report nonsense then you should accumula…

What should the karma be of a new account? That is the minimum karma that spammers can readily abuse.

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

#100

Post by cactusplant7374 »

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…

You have described Reddit moderators.
Post reply on HN