3 ms·

The tech has a lot to do with it. But I'm not sure Mastodon or BlueSky has the tech, they're mostly replicating Twitter but with distributed servers. I haven't

The tech has a lot to do with it. But I'm not sure Mastodon or BlueSky has the tech, they're mostly replicating Twitter but with distributed servers. I haven't checked Nostr in detail yet. To avoid the toxic nature of Twitter you need to allow recursively organized entities/communities which moderate themselves locally, not globally. In this case you can both allow the "virtuous" to group and be protected as a group, but also the "vicious" to group and be isolated as a group. Unfortunately our understanding of systems is so piss poor, no social media is doing this that I'm aware of. Well I could say Reddit's subreddits are a step in that direction, although very crude, and the moderators scheme is less than ideal. Let's say more mini-monarchy than mini-democracy.

geoah 3y ago
They are all trying different ways of solving issues of existing platforms. Seems the main points content moderation and discovery, but you then get to things like identity, account migration, etc. Check out jay’s (ceo of bluesky) posts on composable moderation and algorithmic choice. https://blueskyweb.xyz/blog/4-13-2023-moderation https://blueskyweb.xyz/blog/4-13-2023-moderation https://blueskyweb.xyz/blog/3-30-2023-algorithmic-choice https://blueskyweb.xyz/blog/3-30-2023-algorithmic-choice
- BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
  Those are interesting reads, thanks. But I'm noticing social media runners keep making the same mistake again, and again, and again, and again. We don't need to tag moderated behaviors. We don't need algorithms for feed generation. We need social media which doesn't decide for us, or tries to model itself after our supposed "engagement" and needs and wants. We need social media that allows ourselves to be the algorithm. AI has a bright future, but the human brain remains the best evaluator of what a human wants or needs. AI is optimizing for criteria which doesn't match what a person wants. Reacting to posts doesn't mean the person wanted to see them at all. All those algorithms are laughable at close inspection, at best they optimize for profit through dopamine traps & creating friction of controversy and echo chambers, under the guise of having to select for the user as the user can't select for themselves.

geoah 3y ago

They are all trying different ways of solving issues of existing platforms. Seems the main points content moderation and discovery, but you then get to things like identity, account migration, etc. Check out jay’s (ceo of bluesky) posts on composable moderation and algorithmic choice. https://blueskyweb.xyz/blog/4-13-2023-moderation https://blueskyweb.xyz/blog/4-13-2023-moderation https://blueskyweb.xyz/blog/3-30-2023-algorithmic-choice https://blueskyweb.xyz/blog/3-30-2023-algorithmic-choice

BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
Those are interesting reads, thanks. But I'm noticing social media runners keep making the same mistake again, and again, and again, and again. We don't need to tag moderated behaviors. We don't need algorithms for feed generation. We need social media which doesn't decide for us, or tries to model itself after our supposed "engagement" and needs and wants. We need social media that allows ourselves to be the algorithm. AI has a bright future, but the human brain remains the best evaluator of what a human wants or needs. AI is optimizing for criteria which doesn't match what a person wants. Reacting to posts doesn't mean the person wanted to see them at all. All those algorithms are laughable at close inspection, at best they optimize for profit through dopamine traps & creating friction of controversy and echo chambers, under the guise of having to select for the user as the user can't select for themselves.