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

Bluesky Is a Scam

fiatjaf.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 59 posts

Re: Bluesky Is a Scam

#41

Post by cxr »

fiatjaf wrote: post #35
cxr wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's still too heavyweight. You have just described something that is more complex than what a static site generator can produce. My static site doesn't have an "endpoint" for people to post notifications to. A like is nothing more than a way of saying, "I like this". Think. You can come up with a way to do this that doesn't require you to abandon RSS (read: Atom). If Alice posts something and Bob likes it, then he…

You are basically describing Nostr: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssNkOMx2E5Y

I've looked at Nostr before, and I'm confused by how this response came to exist.

I'm describing RSS (read: Atom) with better UX. Nostr is a from-whole-cloth new protocol that's fundamentally incompatible with everything I've laid out.

(The video you linked to is unwatchably obnoxious, by the way.)

Re: Bluesky Is a Scam

#42

Post by mjfl »

capableweb wrote: post #39
mjfl wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is funny because this demographic values blocking, banning, and censorship very highly while these are exactly the sort of things Nostr and Bluesky are designed to prevent.

Bluesky at least is not design to prevent "blocking, banning, and censorship" at all, not sure where you get that idea from. Blocking/moderation/"censorship" will happen from people's own actions, or subscribing to someone else's actions. If you want, you can just not participate in blocking/moderation at all and have a raw view, but most people will probably opt-in to a moderated view, as the internet is usually (no…

Huh? But blocking someone on a distributed protocol seems impossible? to block someone, or censor them, you would have to get every node in the network to cooperate. Sure you can “mute” someone and not see their posts personally pretty easily. But if you want to make it so that others can’t see someone’s posts, like Alex Jones or Trump, and generally block the public from seeing them, this action seems much harder.

Re: Bluesky Is a Scam

#43

Post by bombcar »

cxr wrote: post #20
bombcar wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest hurdle is the vast VAST majority of people do NOT want to host or run anything, which means there is varying levels of centralization, which introduces the issues people have had.

No it doesn't. The architecture of the platform (like the crummy one that undergirds Mastodon) is what leads to that. Again: microblogs don't need to be any more complicated than a static site. If you have the latest issue of Creed Thoughts in your word processor, then it's easier than ever to get a URL for it. Choose ".html" when you hit "Save As..." rather than ".docx", and then sign up for one of the unending supp…

This is already way past the "average" user; for millions even the configurability of MySpace was a bridge too far.

There is an argument that people who can't be bothered to figure it out probably have nothing interesting to say, and that may be true in the vast majority of cases, it's not universally true; I'm sure we can find quite interesting social media accounts posted by someone who doesn't have the inclination or time to figure out "free static file hosts".

Re: Bluesky Is a Scam

#44

Post by capableweb »

mjfl wrote: post #42
capableweb wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bluesky at least is not design to prevent "blocking, banning, and censorship" at all, not sure where you get that idea from. Blocking/moderation/"censorship" will happen from people's own actions, or subscribing to someone else's actions. If you want, you can just not participate in blocking/moderation at all and have a raw view, but most people will probably opt-in to a moderated view, as the internet is usually (no…

Huh? But blocking someone on a distributed protocol seems impossible? to block someone, or censor them, you would have to get every node in the network to cooperate. Sure you can “mute” someone and not see their posts personally pretty easily. But if you want to make it so that others can’t see someone’s posts, like Alex Jones or Trump, and generally block the public from seeing them, this action seems much harder.

Yeah, if what you want is to prevent others from seeing other-others content, you're gonna have a hard time implementing that in a decentralized/distributed protocol, just as you say.

You basically have to chose between that or allowing the platform to censor anyone, which these "new breeds" of social networks seems to make the choice of doing "personal blocking" rather than "network wide" blocking.

What I think most people want though, is not "blocking" in terms of "no one will be able to see this person" but "blocking" in terms of "I don't want them to be able to interact with me, nor do I want to see their content".

Re: Bluesky Is a Scam

#45

Post by mjfl »

capableweb wrote: post #44
mjfl wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? But blocking someone on a distributed protocol seems impossible? to block someone, or censor them, you would have to get every node in the network to cooperate. Sure you can “mute” someone and not see their posts personally pretty easily. But if you want to make it so that others can’t see someone’s posts, like Alex Jones or Trump, and generally block the public from seeing them, this action seems much harder.

Yeah, if what you want is to prevent others from seeing other-others content, you're gonna have a hard time implementing that in a decentralized/distributed protocol, just as you say. You basically have to chose between that or allowing the platform to censor anyone, which these "new breeds" of social networks seems to make the choice of doing "personal blocking" rather than "network wide" blocking. What I think most…

[flagged]

Re: Bluesky Is a Scam

#46

Post by evbogue »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #13
evbogue wrote: post #4

> The DID itself is derived from the sha256 hash of the first operation in the log. It is then base32 encoded and truncated to 24 chars. https://atproto.com/specs/did-plc#how-it-works They could be using public keys as identifiers, why are they using nonsense?

because they want the ability to perform key rotation

well exactly. If they hold onto your private keys for you, then they can keep you from losing them and also give you a new public key on a set schedule.

but they're also holding into your private keys for you, which comes with some risks.

Re: Bluesky Is a Scam

#47

Post by evbogue »

UncleEntity wrote: post #12
evbogue wrote: post #4

> The DID itself is derived from the sha256 hash of the first operation in the log. It is then base32 encoded and truncated to 24 chars. https://atproto.com/specs/did-plc#how-it-works They could be using public keys as identifiers, why are they using nonsense?

Would public keys be recoverable without having the private key, one of their objectives? They also say: “We're actively hoping to replace it with something less centralized.”

They could replace it with allowing you to hold onto your own keypair.

Re: Bluesky Is a Scam

#48

Post by capableweb »

mjfl wrote: post #45
capableweb wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, if what you want is to prevent others from seeing other-others content, you're gonna have a hard time implementing that in a decentralized/distributed protocol, just as you say. You basically have to chose between that or allowing the platform to censor anyone, which these "new breeds" of social networks seems to make the choice of doing "personal blocking" rather than "network wide" blocking. What I think most…

[flagged]

You're gonna have to start citing something from folks joining bluesky saying that that's what they want, because inside the platform, no one is echoing that sentiment, nor does either bluesky or AT protocol websites suggest an approach where people are being blocked in that manner.

bluesky/AT protocol is pretty clear how they see moderation to work.

> Our approach to moderation is three-fold: automated filtering, manual admin actions, and community labeling

> Labels can be automatically or manually generated, and can be applied by any service or person in the network

> For example, an organization like the ACLU could create a “hate-speech” label, and services or users in the network could subscribe to their labels to flag, filter, mute, or ban content. The Bluesky reference app we’re building has custom controls that lets users hide, warn, or show content, and will add more controls over time. Through this approach, we aim to prioritize user safety while giving people more control and transparency over how moderation is done

https://blueskyweb.xyz/faq

Plus https://blueskyweb.xyz/blog/4-13-2023-moderation

If people, after reading that (or ignoring that) still end up bluesky, we can kind of assume that they agree (explicitly or implicitly) with the approach.

Re: Bluesky Is a Scam

#49

Post by mjfl »

capableweb wrote: post #48
mjfl wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You're gonna have to start citing something from folks joining bluesky saying that that's what they want, because inside the platform, no one is echoing that sentiment, nor does either bluesky or AT protocol websites suggest an approach where people are being blocked in that manner. bluesky/AT protocol is pretty clear how they see moderation to work. > Our approach to moderation is three-fold: automated filtering, ma…

[flagged]

Re: Bluesky Is a Scam

#50

Post by mjfl »

_x2o9 wrote: post #26
mjfl wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is funny because this demographic values blocking, banning, and censorship very highly while these are exactly the sort of things Nostr and Bluesky are designed to prevent.

Irony is lost on these authoritarians who are anti-free speech.

Totally, see the other reply thread - not even the engineers building it seem to understand the irony.
Post reply on HN