4 ms·

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" w

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 (not always) viewed with a moderated perspective.

mjfl 3y ago
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.
- capableweb 3y ago
  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".
  - mjfl 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - capableweb 3y ago
      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 https://blueskyweb.xyz/faq Plus https://blueskyweb.xyz/blog/4-13-2023-moderation 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.
      - mjfl 3y ago
        [flagged]

mjfl 3y ago

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.

capableweb 3y ago
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".
- mjfl 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - capableweb 3y ago
    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 https://blueskyweb.xyz/faq Plus https://blueskyweb.xyz/blog/4-13-2023-moderation 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.
    - mjfl 3y ago
      [flagged]