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

I downloaded all 1.6M posts on Bluesky

worthdoingbadly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 294 posts

Re: I downloaded all 1.6M posts on Bluesky

#121

Post by Gigachad »

zimpenfish wrote: post #109
VancouverMan wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it'd be better to just not have any blocking/muting built into such a system at all. If User A doesn't want to see posts from User B, that's fine. User A can have his client filter them out locally, prior to when they'd otherwise be displayed. Nobody else has to know this is happening. I don't think that User A should be permitted to prevent User B from replying to User A's posts, which in turn prevents User C…

> User A can have his client filter them out locally We've been trying that with email and spam for the last 3 decades and I've got to tell you the results are not good. > prior to when they'd otherwise be displayed. A has to download the harassment from B just to then filter it locally? Seems like you're putting the onus on A here to do the work. What happens if B sends enough to DOS A's link? Or sends CSAM and now…

It works pretty well on email. When I mark a user as spam or set up a filter rule, all of their content goes direct to spam or even deleted if I want. Doesn't bother me at all.

Email has also dealt with the spam issue mostly. If you blast me with too many emails, you get put on a spammer blacklist and servers will just drop the content without delivering it. It also isn't a crime to be unwillingly sent illegal content which you immediately delete.

Re: I downloaded all 1.6M posts on Bluesky

#122

Post by doublepg23 »

doodlesdev wrote: post #63

What are the advantages of ATProto over ActivityPub? I don't get it, if you want to make a decentralized social network why not go with the standardized, working, protocol? What does ATProto offer over ActivityPub?

I’m sure it will make them a lot of VC money.

Re: I downloaded all 1.6M posts on Bluesky

#123

Post by btown »

VancouverMan wrote: post #80
btown wrote: post #46

Given that Bluesky makes it this easy to download data, it's quite alarming that the graph of who blocks & mutes who is fully public and easy to extract into a database: https://atproto.com/lexicons/app-bsky-graph#appbskygraphgetb... On Twitter, blocking a toxic user does not notify them - while they can query the block status of one profile at a time, they can never get a full list of people who block them. But it w…

Maybe it'd be better to just not have any blocking/muting built into such a system at all. If User A doesn't want to see posts from User B, that's fine. User A can have his client filter them out locally, prior to when they'd otherwise be displayed. Nobody else has to know this is happening. I don't think that User A should be permitted to prevent User B from replying to User A's posts, which in turn prevents User C…

The problem is when B comes across a A post and reposts it to B’s followers with a call to action to harass A.

If you don’t give A the ability to avoid this by influencing A’s presence on B’s feed, A will quit the platform entirely, and B will have been rewarded (with engagement) and incentivized to stir up mobs in the future. It creates a toxic environment. Blocking is an effective speed bump to this happening!

Re: I downloaded all 1.6M posts on Bluesky

#124

Post by ketzo »

VancouverMan wrote: post #80
btown wrote: post #46

Given that Bluesky makes it this easy to download data, it's quite alarming that the graph of who blocks & mutes who is fully public and easy to extract into a database: https://atproto.com/lexicons/app-bsky-graph#appbskygraphgetb... On Twitter, blocking a toxic user does not notify them - while they can query the block status of one profile at a time, they can never get a full list of people who block them. But it w…

Maybe it'd be better to just not have any blocking/muting built into such a system at all. If User A doesn't want to see posts from User B, that's fine. User A can have his client filter them out locally, prior to when they'd otherwise be displayed. Nobody else has to know this is happening. I don't think that User A should be permitted to prevent User B from replying to User A's posts, which in turn prevents User C…

This works for one user against one shitty troll.

I think if we have learned literally nothing else, it’s that social media moderation is hard, and the server is going to have to do some work.

It just can’t be only on users to locally block shit. It doesn’t work.

Re: I downloaded all 1.6M posts on Bluesky

#125

Post by panarky »

VancouverMan wrote: post #80
btown wrote: post #46

Given that Bluesky makes it this easy to download data, it's quite alarming that the graph of who blocks & mutes who is fully public and easy to extract into a database: https://atproto.com/lexicons/app-bsky-graph#appbskygraphgetb... On Twitter, blocking a toxic user does not notify them - while they can query the block status of one profile at a time, they can never get a full list of people who block them. But it w…

Maybe it'd be better to just not have any blocking/muting built into such a system at all. If User A doesn't want to see posts from User B, that's fine. User A can have his client filter them out locally, prior to when they'd otherwise be displayed. Nobody else has to know this is happening. I don't think that User A should be permitted to prevent User B from replying to User A's posts, which in turn prevents User C…

> otherwise-public posts

If the platform is pseudonymous and allows individuals to create multiple identities, such that it's trivial for those you block to view your posts from a different identity, or even by not logging in at all, then "blocking" isn't really blocking anybody except the lazy and the ignorant.

In fact, since most users don't think it through this far, even providing such a fake "block" function is inherently deceptive and user-hostile.

Re: I downloaded all 1.6M posts on Bluesky

#126

Post by capableweb »

btown wrote: post #67
capableweb wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a tough line to walk. On one hand, if you participate in a system where almost everything is inherently public (the web/internet, since anyone can screenshot anything and publish wherever they want), it's hardly unexpected that information that was once public, can remain public forever. On the other hand, people have some sort of expectation that the data they publicly post online to remain in some sort of semi…

There's a vast difference between "public" and "actively surfaced." Indeed, blocking someone on Twitter would not prevent them from finding your public profile in an incognito window and seeing your posts - it would simply prevent your posts from being easily and automatically accessible to them in their feed. In practice, this tends to reduce conflict. My concern with Bluesky is that it makes it very possible for to…

Yeah, you're right, there is a big difference.

I think one of the changes they're trying to push through is that since you can't really block someone from viewing your content, if they want to, they're turning it around a bit.

So don't think of blocks as "You won't be able to see my content" but more like "I won't have to see anything of you anymore, and you can't interact with me", which is more accurate on how blocks actually works, even if platforms tell you otherwise.

Re: I downloaded all 1.6M posts on Bluesky

#127

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

latchkey wrote: post #20

I signed into it and there was a meme about posting pictures of butts. Apparently porn still drives the internet.

That google leak about AI, part of their reasoning is civitai and stable diffusion.

The subtext is “we can’t compete with AI because it’s all porn and thus super popular”.

Re: I downloaded all 1.6M posts on Bluesky

#129

Post by debugnik »

zimpenfish wrote: post #109
VancouverMan wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it'd be better to just not have any blocking/muting built into such a system at all. If User A doesn't want to see posts from User B, that's fine. User A can have his client filter them out locally, prior to when they'd otherwise be displayed. Nobody else has to know this is happening. I don't think that User A should be permitted to prevent User B from replying to User A's posts, which in turn prevents User C…

> User A can have his client filter them out locally We've been trying that with email and spam for the last 3 decades and I've got to tell you the results are not good. > prior to when they'd otherwise be displayed. A has to download the harassment from B just to then filter it locally? Seems like you're putting the onus on A here to do the work. What happens if B sends enough to DOS A's link? Or sends CSAM and now…

> We've been trying that with email and spam

Aren't we talking about blocking and muting known user handles? This is easy, the spam problem would be identifying which handles to block.

> What happens if B sends enough to DOS A's link? Or sends CSAM and now A is committing a crime just by downloading the content?

What happens if B does the same before A had a chance to block them? And why would A's client download the content after reading that B published it from the metadata?

> Which increases the friction on B if they want to harass A

True, but I'm afraid we already know from Twitter that B will do it anyway, aided by either fast user switching or a Tweetdeck-like interface.

Re: I downloaded all 1.6M posts on Bluesky

#130

Post by eli »

btown wrote: post #123
VancouverMan wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it'd be better to just not have any blocking/muting built into such a system at all. If User A doesn't want to see posts from User B, that's fine. User A can have his client filter them out locally, prior to when they'd otherwise be displayed. Nobody else has to know this is happening. I don't think that User A should be permitted to prevent User B from replying to User A's posts, which in turn prevents User C…

The problem is when B comes across a A post and reposts it to B’s followers with a call to action to harass A. If you don’t give A the ability to avoid this by influencing A’s presence on B’s feed, A will quit the platform entirely, and B will have been rewarded (with engagement) and incentivized to stir up mobs in the future. It creates a toxic environment. Blocking is an effective speed bump to this happening!

Strong user safety features are at odds with a federated protocol. IMHO federation is a mistake.
Post reply on HN