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

341–350 of 410 posts

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

#341

Post by Arnt »

FreeTrade wrote: post #248
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't they? You join the platform, make friends with folks who say stuff like "Vance and Singal shouldn't be here but the people that give them death threats should", then they tell you to hop onto "Cleansky" which has its own Appview that filters out Vance, Singal, and platforms your buddies. You don't need to make a new account or anything. The default experience just needs to be good enough. Beyond that fol…

The decentralization problem in BlueSky is not filtering out users, but rather hearing from users that BlueSky has decided to filter out.

Most recently in my case: "$3.5 million scam victims compensation fund".

People who want me to hear them belong to one of two groups: I want that, or I don't.

The second group may be expected to be overwhelmingly spammers and scammers, with a smattering of tankies and kooks, because the ability to reach the largest possible audience is attractive to them, right? So what you think, should each recipient maintain his/her own filter, or should the platform include some sort of common filter?

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

#342

Post by seivan »

DaSHacka wrote: post #323
Devasta wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't it be successful? Truth Social seems to be doing pretty well, and no one on the left pretends that they should be allowed post there, the left is happy for those people to fuck off and leave them alone. Not everyone wants to debate politics all the time. Sometimes they just want to exist as trans people, share posts with their other queer friends and enjoy their day.

> Why wouldn't it be successful? Truth Social seems to be doing pretty well, Is it? No one I know uses it at all, the only time I even remember it exists is when seeing screenshots of Trump's posts reposted on mainstream media and twitter from his account there. It's essentially the "trump-branded-twitter" and I never even hear of anyone else actually using it. Compared to twitter, where most people I know still have…

[dead]

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

#343

Post by seivan »

rdtsc wrote: post #31

> But not everyone is looking forward to the idea: “I’d go back to Usenet before I went back to Mastodon,” wrote Bluesky user Count Von Horse Knuckler. “I do not need people yelling at me for not putting cat pictures behind trigger warnings or unwanted Linux advice.” Cat pictures need a trigger warning? Wonder what the triggering effect is there? I can see Linux advice though: kill, mount, etc.

[dead]

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

#344

Post by incomingpain »

>encouraging them to make lists of accounts that could be automatically blocked or labeled—and thereby removing itself as much as possible from moderation decisions

and thereby reinforcing their echo chamber with efficiency.

This week one of the youtubers I like, Canadian auto mechanic who typically focuses on canadian politics. He decided to join bluesky. I commented that he's going to be banned by the end of the day. He replied that he is avoiding usa politics and controversial subjects. He ended up banned on the second day. No specific example, just that his account was reviewed and he's banned. I saw his posts, they were all tongue in cheek jokes poking fun. Absolutely no valid reason to ban him.

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

#345

Post by arresin »

incomingpain wrote: post #344

>encouraging them to make lists of accounts that could be automatically blocked or labeled—and thereby removing itself as much as possible from moderation decisions and thereby reinforcing their echo chamber with efficiency. This week one of the youtubers I like, Canadian auto mechanic who typically focuses on canadian politics. He decided to join bluesky. I commented that he's going to be banned by the end of the da…

Which side of the political spectrum is he on?

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

#346

Post by cindyllm »

arresin wrote: post #345
incomingpain wrote: post #344

>encouraging them to make lists of accounts that could be automatically blocked or labeled—and thereby removing itself as much as possible from moderation decisions and thereby reinforcing their echo chamber with efficiency. This week one of the youtubers I like, Canadian auto mechanic who typically focuses on canadian politics. He decided to join bluesky. I commented that he's going to be banned by the end of the da…

Which side of the political spectrum is he on?

[dead]

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

#347

Post by arresin »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #223
renewiltord wrote: post #91

Interesting. Reddit by contrast is moderation decentralized system centralized.

Not really. Reddit Inc controls far more of the moderation inside subs than they let on. Their insane PE higher than nVidiaa isn’t from an AI data deal. It’s a narrative/propaganda control device.

The deal would be counted in equity

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

#348

Post by apwell23 »

Nursie wrote: post #289
apwell23 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

common people arent really using twitter or bluesky that much anyways. its just the crazies that are on there.

Always was. It's why I found it so dismaying when we went through years of apparently serious newspapers reporting on every twitter-storm as if it was important. Yes, it was a good if unreliable source of breaking news, but the general noise of people fighting back and forwards about whatever it was that week ... was just noise, among a relatively small group of motivated crazies. Using it as a societal barometer jus…

yep thats why these platforms are so toxic. bunch of lunatics locked in an asylum together.

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

#349

Post by incomingpain »

arresin wrote: post #345
incomingpain wrote: post #344

>encouraging them to make lists of accounts that could be automatically blocked or labeled—and thereby removing itself as much as possible from moderation decisions and thereby reinforcing their echo chamber with efficiency. This week one of the youtubers I like, Canadian auto mechanic who typically focuses on canadian politics. He decided to join bluesky. I commented that he's going to be banned by the end of the da…

Which side of the political spectrum is he on?

Very much a conservative.

His most controversial post on bluesky that I saw, he commented on Obama saying that perhaps they should just shutdown the government and with the saved tax $, they can afford to buy healthcare.

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

#350

Post by mjmas »

isodev wrote: post #204
mjmas wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't the remaining 15% be the section in a bubble?

Could you rephrase that please, I’m not sure what you mean

Wouldn't the remaining 15% be the portion of the populace that is in a bubble, rather than the 85%?
Post reply on HN