3 ms·

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 pro

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

[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]