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

231–240 of 410 posts

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

#231

Post by danpalmer »

derbOac wrote: post #18

I much prefer Bluesky to X but have had a hunch this was coming due to everything I've read about the practicality of running a Bluesky protocol service. I still think there's room for something better technically. Mastodon seems more true to the decentralized ethos but I've never quite gotten used to the server dependency experience. Nostr appeals to me technically but every time I'm on it seems swamped completely b…

> Mastodon seems more true to the decentralized ethos

I'm not sure that's true. It's important to note that these bans are from the Bluesky App View (one component of the infra), and that these users can continue to post under their identity (if they own it, which they can), and users on App Views that haven't banned these users could continue to follow them.

None of that works with Mastodon. An admin bans you from the instance, and you can no longer post, use your identity, interact on the platform, etc. You have to start from scratch.

In short, Mastodon reduces the blast radius, but the "blast" is the same as on any private platform. Bluesky/AT Proto changes the impact to a different, strictly lesser type.

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

#232

Post by DaSHacka »

theossuary wrote: post #200
mustache_kimono wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am going to re-insist on the idea that parental consent is going to play a big role in practice in US healthcare practices, if only for financial reasons. Oh agreed. If, for no other reason, that is how the politics, even on the American Left, are now. A few years ago, people were talking about gender affirming care as a matter of right for the children. Singal, among others, changed that conversation. > I have v…

It should be a matter of right. My parents mutilated me as a child because they denied me healthcare. We should not allow parents to deny their children healthcare which leads to their permanent disfiguration. That's disgusting. If you think it'd be wrong to force a cis kid to be trans, then it's also wrong to force a trans kid to be cis.

> We should not allow parents to deny their children healthcare which leads to their permanent disfiguration. That's disgusting.

So instead we need to enable parents to allow healthcare to disfigure their young kids when they predictably get influenced from social media and their peers?

How is it 'disgusting' to try to let someone live as they were born?

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

#233

Post by danpalmer »

I'm disappointed in what has happened, but I think Bluesky/AT Proto presents a better direction and I hope that this is just a period of adjustment.

There are essentially two tiers of moderation on Bluesky – that provided by Bluesky themselves, and community moderation. The community moderation is powerful and I use it fairly extensively already, and my hope is that in the long term it's the community moderation that represents the bulk of moderation on the network.

The problem is that Bluesky are legally required, and required by app publishing platforms, to implement some moderation themselves. It seems like their approach there has been to focus on strict legalities, leaving the rest to community moderation. This is a good idea for the decentralized nature, but unfortunately some high profile individuals know how to fly under the legal limit while still being a pain. Then there's outrage at them not being banned even though community moderation thoroughly silences them for anyone who wants it. This results in hate being targeted at the Bluesky team... and eventually that hate turns into threats (perceived or real) and that results in bans. Now it looks like Bluesky are banning their critics while allowing dangerous people on the platform.

Bluesky are not without fault here. They've not communicated about this well, they've not pushed community moderation well enough, and they've posted some questionable rage bait. But I do understand where they're going and think the future is ultimately bright for AT Proto and the Bluesky network.

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

#234

Post by duxup »

derbOac wrote: post #18

I much prefer Bluesky to X but have had a hunch this was coming due to everything I've read about the practicality of running a Bluesky protocol service. I still think there's room for something better technically. Mastodon seems more true to the decentralized ethos but I've never quite gotten used to the server dependency experience. Nostr appeals to me technically but every time I'm on it seems swamped completely b…

Seems like the hard truth is all these alternate platforms that offer their technology as the reason to get on it ... it's just not a great selling point for someone who wants to post "woah watch out driving tonight, it's slippery out there" or cat pics. I think that's a lot of users.

The content of the posts and some level of moderation is the selling point.

Personally that's kinda a bummer, because IMO my biggest disappointment is that its just Twitter but little different. Same pithy posts and petty bickering:(

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

#235

Post by exidy »

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]

> I'm fine with labelling this person "anti trans"

You should probably at least give Jesse the right of reply here: https://unherd.com/2023/11/the-rage-behind-transgender-map/

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

#236

Post by jauntywundrkind »

derbOac wrote: post #18

I much prefer Bluesky to X but have had a hunch this was coming due to everything I've read about the practicality of running a Bluesky protocol service. I still think there's room for something better technically. Mastodon seems more true to the decentralized ethos but I've never quite gotten used to the server dependency experience. Nostr appeals to me technically but every time I'm on it seems swamped completely b…

> I still think there's room for something better technically. Mastodon seems more true to the decentralized ethos but I've never quite gotten used to the server dependency experience.

There's more servers on Mastodon, yes, so in that way it is decentralized more. But as a user, I have a lot more sovereignty over my data on Bluesky than I get having my account on a Mastodon / fediverse. I can set up my own PDS quite easily, or move to another, or back to BlueSky hosting very easy. I appreciate this decentralization a lot.

And I have a much better chance of being able to analyze system behavior, understand propoganda networks on atproto/bluesky. Mastodon servers heavily discourage trying to view & understand the network, but Bluesky really lets everyday folks run and analyze the whole firehose, very very cheaply. Which is an incredible decentralization, a very powerful syndication that it's protocols enable, that's simply unmatched. Still, research is being done on both networks: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45507566

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

#237

Post by duxup »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #143

I definitely have my concerns over the decreasing DAUs on the platform and the crabby, toxic community that has come to really define Bluesky these days but I don't think the tech is the problem. For folks who keep pointing at Mastodon, remember that ActivityPub's predecessor OStatus originates from 2012 and Mastodon itself was kicked off in 2016. Mastodon is 9 years old at this point. Bluesky is only a few years old…

I do wish there was a community that encouraged thoughtful positivity over negativity (granted I would not "ban" it) and some level of limited posting ... or something like that.

It's a pipe dream I know, but on the surface social media could be really cool.

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

#238

Post by DaSHacka »

o11c wrote: post #119
lawlessone wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Even that only applies to one side of the political aisle

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

#239

Post by jauntywundrkind »

EA-3167 wrote: post #84
tptacek wrote: post #58

You know what they say, when you're explaining that you don't really wish death upon the CEO of the niche social network platform on which you depend, you're losing.

I’d argue that people lose the moment they sign up for an account, deluding themselves into believing that the problem with the last nth iteration of the same thing isn’t them. The format is the problem. The medium is the problem. Poorly moderated groups of anonymous people voidscreaming as some “this will be monetized once we hit critical mass” exercise is the problem. I believe that eventually people will sort ours…

Sure there's bad uses, but putting yourself out there, on the public record, and cherishing those others around us doing the same is, in my view, divine.

I can't imagine the mindset that wouldn't want to be capturing some of the amazing wonderful world about them & the thoughts in their head & sharing them with others. I find these views about walking away from putting yourself online, seeing only the harm, as being deeply nihilistic & running away from clear amazing basically spiritual human value.

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

#240

Post by Manuel_D »

rtpg wrote: post #137
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...

The guy's whole bit is arguing from some sort of vague sociological perspective against gender affirming care. And pretending that (in the United States of America of all places) teens can just walk up to their doctors super easily and get surgery done somehow. He presents this issue as a sort of parental-rights-ignoring epidemic, but if you dig into the reality of it all there's a hell of a lot of parental consent,…

What is Singal misrepresenting? His writings on the subject mostly serve to highlight just how poor the evidence around gender affirming pediatric care is. And he's hardly alone in this conclusion. The UK, Sweden, Italy, Denmark, Norway, and Finland have all stopped routine prescription of hormone blockers to children. Most countries never allowed it in the first place.
Post reply on HN