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

121–130 of 274 posts

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

#121

Post by squigz »

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

Being 'at the whims' of whoever maintains the blocklist isn't unique to this style of moderation - when it's Twitter, you're at the whims of the company - but at least it means you can use other blocklists if/when the good ones go to shit, or can start a community-ran blocklist.

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

#123

Post by johnnyanmac »

squigz wrote: post #115
idlewords wrote: post #95

Bluesky would really benefit from a notional ($1/year) signup fee. That small bit of friction makes a vast difference in knocking down all kinds of spam, at the price of being considered a bit uncool (for having a revenue stream).

And at the price of anonymity, and making the platform inaccessible to those who can't afford the signup fee (which will certainly stay 1 USD per year forever, right?) (inb4 someone tells me how everyone can afford $1) Not to mention that this won't solve the spam that actually matters. What's dropping a few thousand dollars to a dedicated attacker?

no, $1, one time. Despite the owner, this was one thing SomethingAwful seemed to do right over 20 years ago. The goal isn't to make money, but discourage botting. any paywall works and $1 is about as low as you can go in a digital transaction without credit card brokers making it difficult for you.

And yes, it really shouldn't go up. SomethingAwful was 10bux back in 2005, and is still 10bux in 2025 (they monetized other things over the decades, but not the entry cost).

Can it be exploited? Sure, about as much as Bluesky can add "Bluesky Gold" at any time. When it enshittifies I hope it takes a shorter time to leave than Twitter.

>inb4 someone tells me how everyone can afford $1

if you have the time to be commenting on social media, you can afford $1. The cost of electricity to run your phone for a month is probably $1.

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

#124

Post by harimau777 »

newsclues wrote: post #78
dyauspitr wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but what’s the point, most people don’t want to spend a lot of time there.

The small group that does has had a major influence on culture at large.

Sure, but that influence has not exactly been positive. That's the catch I think. It's much easier to exert negative influence than positive influence.

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

#125

Post by johnnyanmac »

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.

No one's saying the quiet part out loud. Pay for an account. Even $1, one time, is enough to cut almost all those bot farms down.

Is it realistic? yes. Is it viable? I'm not sure. People claim to care more about privacy but will choose ads and trackers over a subscription any day of the week. Anyone operating a website or app with a subsciption knows this.

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

#126

Post by tourmalinetaco »

astrange wrote: post #91
nirav72 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

“Narrowest possible lost”, sure, minus the fact that despite raising over $1B the Harris campaign still ended up $20M in debt, Republicans are majority in every section of elected government with plans to reinforce that, millions of Americans are becoming disillusioned with Democratic ideology, and you even have the president and his wife casting aside his own VP in favor of Trump by refusing to attend her election night party, but instead meeting with the very same man who did not give him the same courtesy in 2020.

Yeah, aside from all that it was the “narrowest possible loss”.

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

#127

Post by squigz »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #123
squigz wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And at the price of anonymity, and making the platform inaccessible to those who can't afford the signup fee (which will certainly stay 1 USD per year forever, right?) (inb4 someone tells me how everyone can afford $1) Not to mention that this won't solve the spam that actually matters. What's dropping a few thousand dollars to a dedicated attacker?

no, $1, one time. Despite the owner, this was one thing SomethingAwful seemed to do right over 20 years ago. The goal isn't to make money, but discourage botting. any paywall works and $1 is about as low as you can go in a digital transaction without credit card brokers making it difficult for you. And yes, it really shouldn't go up. SomethingAwful was 10bux back in 2005, and is still 10bux in 2025 (they monetized ot…

I like how nobody on HN seems to understand how poverty works.

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

#128

Post by johnnyanmac »

4ntiq wrote: post #65

something tells me 4chan will survive the birth and death of many social media platforms. lessons to be learned but everyone keeps repeating the same mistakes

Not sure if it tracks given that the founder himself more or less got ousted from his platform. I don't exactly think the current owners keep the servers up in good faith.

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

#129

Post by ShrimpHawk »

tourmalinetaco wrote: post #114
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…

It’s already happened, for instance there are multiple blocklists that try to remove as many furries as possible (which personally is a benefit, although you may think differently). We also have more political ones, mostly anti-“right wing” as bsky trends more “left”. The more extreme elements of Twitter were the first to evacuate, so it’s no surprise that they’re already attempting to rebuild their algorithmically d…

"If you are tolerant to everyone, the intolerant will use that to take control and do whatever they want."

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

#130

Post by duskwuff »

CuriousCosmic wrote: post #75
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…

> 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. This actually has already kind of occurred with moderation lists and the solution has generally been to strike down list managers who abuse their authority and block them (as you can't normally add someone who has blocked you to their lists).

> (as you can't normally add someone who has blocked you to their lists)

That seems really abuseable.

Post reply on HN