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

111–120 of 410 posts

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

#111

Post by gedy »

monocularvision wrote: post #63
huhkerrf wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even better: the only “evidence” of Singal’s “anti-trans” views are that his work has been quoted by anti-trans politicians and activists. This is an absolute ridiculous bar to have. Anyone who follows him would be hard-pressed to describe him as “anti-trans” unless you think anything less than a full throated endorsement of self ID and medical transition interventions for minors is “anti-trans”.

> unless you think anything less than a full throated endorsement

That is absolutely how some of the more "passionate" activist types have been for the past 5+ years on a number of social topics, not just trans.

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

#112

Post by astrange »

threatofrain wrote: post #5
ranger_danger wrote: post #2

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

ML could potentially provide a decentralized mechanism for filtering unwanted content, or even hybrid approaches. IMO the worst of content filtering (gore or other psychologically disturbing content) will soon be an automated job.

It already is and has been for a long time. The kinds of content you have to moderate are not things anyone wants to look at. The worst ones are far worse than you can imagine and the average ones are nudes of people you don't want to look at all day.

This is actually today's controversy on Bluesky because the #1 attribute of its power users is they're terrified of "AI" and the idea that "companies will steal their posts to generate AI slop", which means they think the ML moderation is stealing their posts.

Oh, but the ML can't be decentralized because the training datasets are illegal.

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

#113

Post by carynh »

tptacek wrote: post #66
TinkersW wrote: post #60

From the article I got the impression Singal was some far right loon, but after looking it up.. nope, he is a liberal that said something mildly out of sync with trans activists opinions...

No good will come of a fulsome litigation of Singal but it's fair to say that he doesn't go out of his way to avoid these controversies. Sort of like Fredrik deBoer, he's one of journalism's answers to the concept of edgelordery. People who vocally wish he was less influential would do well to remember how much juice they've been giving him.

> he's one of journalism's answers to the concept of edgelordery

either the term "edgelord" means something very different from what it did 10ish years ago or you have a very misinformed understanding about how timid Jesse approaches online conflict. I haven't seen him initiate any form of edgy engagement in forever .. maybe ever.

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

#114

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #61
Palomides wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"he didn't technically break any rules so I won't ban him" has been the death of _many_ social spaces good moderation requires discretion and keeping the users happy, not slavish legalism

That's an argument that proves a lot , given that it kind of implies that a quorum of customers can simply vote other customers off the island.

[deleted]

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

#115

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

dmbche wrote: post #94
monocularvision wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even better: the only “evidence” of Singal’s “anti-trans” views are that his work has been quoted by anti-trans politicians and activists. This is an absolute ridiculous bar to have. Anyone who follows him would be hard-pressed to describe him as “anti-trans” unless you think anything less than a full throated endorsement of self ID and medical transition interventions for minors is “anti-trans”.

[flagged]

How dare they write for... The Atlantic!

Why are some people like this?

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

#116

Post by spooon »

chimeracoder wrote: post #25
andrewmcwatters wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

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

#117

Post by dlivingston »

lkey wrote: post #104
huhkerrf wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Facebook and Twitter no longer bother with moderation, do you think the experience on those platforms is better or worse than 5 years ago? It used to be common sense to immediately ban creeps of all stripes, especially the obvious ones. Singal certainly qualifies. Putting aside the super annoying 'just asking questions' vitriol that he publishes to national papers, his pdf-file chat log stuff alone would warrant an i…

> This isn't an election, and popularism is a coward's appeal.

These platforms were supposed to be the "digital town square". Implicit in that is the idea that anyone and everyone can discuss and share their ideas. When would you remove someone from an actual town square? Only when they are being extremely disruptive or violent.

Further, it cannot be a "town square" if half the town isn't allowed to be there.

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

#118

Post by felixgallo »

subsistence234 wrote: post #82
a_shovel wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll need to explain this a little bit more, because the TC article seems to indicate the issue is that he is accused of targeted harassment. I doubt you could design a poll to make people vote 85% in favor of targeted harassment.

> he is accused of targeted harassment yeah but that's an accusation without basis in reality.

oh, there's tons of basis in reality. How could you even say that? Just a cursory google:

https://www.professorwatchlist.org/

https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-makes...

https://www.azregents.edu/news-releases/abor-chair-statement

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

#119

Post by o11c »

lawlessone wrote: post #100
huhkerrf wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>if applied to everyone, would lean to a ban of probably 85% I'm not American but looking in from the outside i can't figure out anything 85% of you would agree on there right now.

"People who disagree with me should not be allowed to speak" is definitely up there.

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

#120

Post by dragonwriter »

lkey wrote: post #104
huhkerrf wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Facebook and Twitter no longer bother with moderation, do you think the experience on those platforms is better or worse than 5 years ago? It used to be common sense to immediately ban creeps of all stripes, especially the obvious ones. Singal certainly qualifies. Putting aside the super annoying 'just asking questions' vitriol that he publishes to national papers, his pdf-file chat log stuff alone would warrant an i…

> Facebook and Twitter no longer bother with moderation, do you think the experience on those platforms is better or worse than 5 years ago?

I haven't used FB in years but Twitter is very (stupidly and incoherently, but very actively) moderated. Unless you are being technical and saying that Twitter doesn't exist and so isn't moderated, and the moderated thing is X, but...

Post reply on HN