Live data from Hacker News

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

plus.flux.community

101–110 of 410 posts

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

#101
post #17

I hate to be the one to say it, but...this is why we can't have nice things. At a certain scale, social media tilts humanity in one direction. We can't seem to escape the trajectory of our very nature; it will outcompete any complex system we devise to outwit it.

Maybe its just a filtering problem. I wished musk would have thought about creating semi-permeable bubbles for every milieu, when he bought twitter, where you can switch between feel-good and controversy filters as you wish. Hard lock outs / bans only lead to more polarization.

He kind of did this by making it so you can see the posts of people who block you. Of course, he did this because he's so annoying everyone blocked him.

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

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's been my experience, too. I signed up with an account so I could follow some people, and my default timeline has been full of some pretty extreme stuff. For example, there were a shocking number of posts against the proposed digital ID system because it's being advocated for by "Larry Ellison, a Jew". That's a verbatim quote, BTW. Uh, excuse me? There are plenty of valid reasons to dislike Larry Ellison, but hi…

Yup, that’s the kind of thing I was talking about. Curiously I was immediately downvoted, which (assuming most people here aren’t that extreme) makes me think people relatively into the network aren’t familiar with the current state for a newish user.

I was shocked at what I saw. I won't so far as to say that I wouldn't have believed you, but I would've been skeptical. Nope, not anymore. It was really, really bad. And like you, I'm not talking about things like "oh no, people are saying things I disagree with!" It was more like "wow, I cannot believe people are actually saying these things in public without fear of being shunned by society".

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

#103

> 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.

The _actual_ trouble with Bluesky is that it's just a retread of Twitter with only a few minor tweaks, right down to the inevitable moderation and governance problems from shoving every user into a single shared social space and having a single centralized point of failure.

It's not 2012 anymore, and the modern mainstream social media ecosystem has turned into an utter disaster area. If you're going to do social media in the 2020's, you need something better, not the same tired ideas and empty promises about "We'll do it _right_ this time around, honest."

Mastodon, for all its faults, at the very least was truly and demonstrably decentralized.

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

#104

> 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.

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 instant perma from me without a second thought.

Speaking to your broader point about the 'death' of a platform. The people that made bsky what it is now (good and ill) are precisely the people you are blaming for its downfall, which is weird. Normally when you run a business you want your users to remain so that you might profit.

Relatedly, I'm very very tired of the 4chan/crypto/ai gas-leak that has enshittified everything, aren't you?

I've seen bsky users chat casually about their rpe and death-threat ratio before and after leaving twitter, and for that alone, I would choose the 'threat lite' platform for as long as it remained so.

> "The question is not whether those views are right, it's whether those are mainstream."

I don't agree that this is the question, nor do I agree with the your unsupported number. This isn't an election, and popularism is a coward's appeal. Was the Gaza genocide not a genocide until the polls caught up with what we could all see was happening?

I don't even think you believe what your wrote. If the 'views' in question are truly shared by 85%!* of a population that never agrees on anything, then surely there's no problem with sharing them on this forum? A guarantee of 85% positive karma is awaiting you if you just speak your truth. It's the Trump era, and you can say the 'r-word' and the 't-slur' now. What was actually holding you back?

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

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When speech is violence, allowing someone a platform is akin to being party to and supporting .

Speech is not violence, guilt by association is undemocratic, and this hypothesis of de-platforming as a tactic to limit uncouth ideas was thoroughly tested over the last ~15 years and demonstrably shown to be false: Trump, Alex Jones, and many others were banned across platforms. One of these people now sits in the White House, in part because of backlash to the deplatforming of him and others with similar politics.

It cost $44B to get him unbanned so I think that's actually pretty good evidence it worked.

> One of these people now sits in the White House, in part because of backlash to the deplatforming of him and others with similar politics.

It's not because of anything. Cause and effect doesn't apply to the brain of the median American voter - they live in a world of pure imagination. You could say they thought prices would go back down to 2016 levels, but that makes too much sense. If you look up what they actually think it's like "I voted for Trump because I want to protect abortion".

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

#106

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.

Dolly Parton!

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

#107

[flagged]

How is it possible that this tiny minority of "[things I don't like] men" has such an impact on your bubble of the internet? It should be tiny compared to hundreds of millions of men in Africa, China, India, etc.

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

#108
post #94

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 wanted to give you (and the website you linked) the benefit of the doubt since with all the accusations they make there is a link in there. I thought it was sources of Jesse actually doing any of this stuff (which he didn't but I am willing to be proven wrong) .. but no. Those links are all just internal info dumps and almost nothing of the accusations on the page is sourced .. at all.

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

#109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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) subreddit…

Mjolnir is designed to apply decentralised public blocklists - i.e. you pick which banlists to apply; there are a bunch published by different people (matrix.org, the matrix 'community moderation effort', etc). Admittedly moderators do share lists (so that if #archlinux bans you, others might pick up the ban), but there's no intrinsic centralisation. https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/msc2313/propos... is…

BlueSky also has this, but it works poorly because people use blocklists as a form of harassment, or else take over existing lists and add their enemies to it.

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

#110
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good on Jay Graber that she's sticking to a reasoned set of principles instead of bowing down to the braying mob.

if you call your userbase a braying mob, you're not going to have a userbase for long

It's a small fraction of the userbase that is up in arms about this, who want special exceptions made for their demands.
Post reply on HN