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

User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

plus.flux.community

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 410 posts

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#21

Post by ranger_danger »

glenstein wrote: post #8
ranger_danger wrote: post #2

From what I have seen, the "solution" to moderation troubles in decentralized solutions has mostly always been... more centralization.

The only major decentralized forms of social media that I'm aware of that have confronted philosophical questions of how handle moderation have been Mastodon, Bluesky, and arguably Lemmy. I don't know of any sense in which Mastodon has increased centralization, I think its blocking tools have been distributed essentially since the beginning, not something that has iterated toward centralization over time in response…

The big example that comes to my mind is Matrix, where most homeservers use Mjolnir to apply centralized public blocklists of other servers/people they don't like.

So if for example #archlinux disagrees with your opinion and they decide to ban you for it, you are now banned from many other unrelated channels.

I have also seen subreddits that auto-ban users that have ever posted in specific other (unrelated) subreddits.

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#23

Post by Covzire »

pessimizer wrote: post #11

[flagged]

I call it the "unaccounted-for activist problem". Certain people will, without fail, like clockwork, if given the chance, ban or "silence" a LOT of other people from anywhere and everywhere that they can whether a bus, a playground, a public or private space, or a social media site. You have to account for these kinds of people, and you have to see through their bullshit of "speech is violence", no violence is violence and speech is speech and any platform that confuses the two will either fail or enslave everyone to many other lies.

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#24

Post by huhkerrf »

mustache_kimono wrote: post #7

> However, as time has gone by, Bluesky’s traffic has declined (X’s has as well) and some of its users have become increasingly upset at its moderation decisions, including allowing U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance and anti-trans writer Jesse Singal to remain as users of the platform. The problem, if you can call it that, is Singal hasn't broken any of their TOS or guidelines. Right now, AFAICT this is a people with pi…

It's worse than that, as the linked TC article links to an explanation of his ban-worthy views that, if applied to everyone, would lean to a ban of probably 85% of the US. (Purposefully not referencing them here. The question is not whether those views are right, it's whether those are mainstream.)

Bluesky has a problem of its user base demanding purity, and it will 100% be the death of it.

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#25

Post by chimeracoder »

andrewmcwatters wrote: post #19
pessimizer wrote: post #11

[flagged]

Do you mean "misandry?"

> Do you mean "misandry?"

No, OP is being transphobic and referring to trans women as men:

> Note that the "banning controversy" is that they're not banning enough people for having entirely mainstream political opinions, and mostly targets journalists. Or let's be more specific: mostly targets people who don't think that men can identify into being victims of misogyny.

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#26

Post by AlexandrB »

pessimizer wrote: post #11

[flagged]

> On both networks, it makes it virtually impossible for minorities (like black Americans) to speak to each other without a flood of freaks rolling in to interrupt. Interrupting conversations is the real anti-social behavior. The point is supposed to enable and encourage conversation.

Despite all its flaws, reddit got this mostly right. Having explicit sub-communities allows groups of people to keep to themselves if they want to and ban anyone who's not welcome.

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#27

Post by chimeracoder »

mustache_kimono wrote: post #16
chimeracoder wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem, if you can call it that, is Singal hasn't broken any of their TOS. Well, no, he did unambiguously break the TOS back when he originally joined. Then Bluesky amended their TOS, which gave them an avenue to avoid banning him.

> Well, no, he did clearly break the TOS back when he originally joined. Care to explain? The links in the article re: potential violations are mostly BS.

Doxxing people off-platform used to be against the ToS. When people began reporting him for that, Bluesky amended their ToS.

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#28

Post by ogou »

This is not a general problem with moderation there, centralized or decentralized. This particular issue is specific to a large group of people that don't like Jesse Singal and have been trying to get him removed from Bluesky. It hasn't worked and that group is trying all kinds of way to reframe the narrative to get leverage. All the padding this post adds around that is neotechnical jargon slop.

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#29

Post by greekrich92 »

mustache_kimono wrote: post #7

> However, as time has gone by, Bluesky’s traffic has declined (X’s has as well) and some of its users have become increasingly upset at its moderation decisions, including allowing U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance and anti-trans writer Jesse Singal to remain as users of the platform. The problem, if you can call it that, is Singal hasn't broken any of their TOS or guidelines. Right now, AFAICT this is a people with pi…

[flagged]

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#30

Post by layer8 »

Simulacra wrote: post #22

"..systems that reward outrage only make the problem worse.” I think this is what a lot of social media has become, particularly as people isolate themselves to only those sources and feeds they agree with.

I upvoted you, and at the time I believe that the core of the problem is having ranking and reaction mechanisms.
Post reply on HN