4 ms·

This is good and all but, sigh are we really celebrating letting self hosting get into the hands of bad actors to federate with Bluesky? And don’t say “lets de

This is good and all but, sigh are we really celebrating letting self hosting get into the hands of bad actors to federate with Bluesky? And don’t say “lets defederate with said bad actors” since they would still exist and anyone can join said bad actors instances. It’s akin to telling antelopes surrounded by lions to close their eyes and the lions are ‘gone’ yet the lions still exist around them.

orthecreedence 3y ago
Your argument against federation and open communication is that bad people might use it? What's to stop bad people from using the main Bluesky instance?
- colesantiago 3y ago
  There is a form of moderation on the main instance. A self hosted instance will have no such moderation.
  - orthecreedence 3y ago
    > A self hosted instance will have no such moderation. Maybe I'm missing something here. Are the federated instances less functional than the main instance? Is this some kind of weird freemium thing they're doing? (I'm actually asking, I'm not familiar with Bluesky much at all.)
    - steveklabnik 3y ago
      I have not yet reviewed the code, but the federated instances should be equally as functional as the main instance. However, having the option of functionality does not mean that they will operate the same way. Your parent is not making a technical claim, but a social one: that there will be instances that are effectively unmoderated, because the people who run it hold that up as some kind of ideal, and that that is a problem. I do not share this opinion personally, but have seen many people express it, so I feel like I am representing it accurately. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it's incorrect, and not just an opinion, because unlike in Mastodon, moderation is not tied to your instance. Of course, whoever owns an instance can decide to kick someone off of it, but that's not the primary moderation mechanism in BlueSky, which allows you to choose your own set of moderation tools, regardless of which instance you or anyone else belongs to. I linked to the main three posts to understand BlueSky's moderation stances and features upthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39471973 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39471973
      - orthecreedence 3y ago
        > Your parent is not making a technical claim, but a social one: that there will be instances that are effectively unmoderated, because the people who run it hold that up as some kind of ideal, and that that is a problem. Ah that makes sense. Thanks for reframing this. I don't particularly agree either, but I think I now understand the viewpoint better.
  - shkkmo 3y ago
    A self hosted instance will have whatever moderation the host chooses to implement (such as CSAM monitoring if required by law.) On top of that, user defined moderation will be applied from block and mute lists. Hopefully this will include using 3rd party lists and eventually, user specified content filters.
- numpad0 3y ago
  It's always porn, or political extremism. Nobody opposes literal spams, but the definition of former two depends on cultural backgrounds and there will always be demonization around those.
rsynnott 3y ago
> And don’t say “lets defederate with said bad actors” since they would still exist and anyone can join said bad actors instances. Er... fine, and who cares? If everyone defederates (slightly more a nuclear option on Bluesky than Mastodon but still I think possible?), then, well, the bad instance is its own problem. Or are you saying that even an unfederated instance with bad people would be bad? Like, the only solution there is to ban all open-source social networking software.
shkkmo 3y ago
This is entirely by design: > Moderation on Bluesky is not tied to your server, like it is on Mastodon. Defederation, a way of addressing moderation issues in Mastodon by disconnecting servers, is not as relevant on Bluesky because there are other layers to the system. Server operators can set rules for what content they will host, but tools like blocklists and moderation services are what help communities self-organize around moderation preferences. We’ve already integrated block and mute lists, and the tooling for independent moderation services is coming soon. The whole point is to decentralize moderation so that users aren't stuck with only the moderation provided by their host. Decentralized moderation and the tools needed to support it are not solved problems but are instead ongoing projects. Block and mute lists clearly won't be sufficient to enable robust decentralized moderation so it will he interesting to see how support for third party content filters get implemented.

orthecreedence 3y ago

Your argument against federation and open communication is that bad people might use it? What's to stop bad people from using the main Bluesky instance?

colesantiago 3y ago
There is a form of moderation on the main instance. A self hosted instance will have no such moderation.
- orthecreedence 3y ago
  > A self hosted instance will have no such moderation. Maybe I'm missing something here. Are the federated instances less functional than the main instance? Is this some kind of weird freemium thing they're doing? (I'm actually asking, I'm not familiar with Bluesky much at all.)
  - steveklabnik 3y ago
    I have not yet reviewed the code, but the federated instances should be equally as functional as the main instance. However, having the option of functionality does not mean that they will operate the same way. Your parent is not making a technical claim, but a social one: that there will be instances that are effectively unmoderated, because the people who run it hold that up as some kind of ideal, and that that is a problem. I do not share this opinion personally, but have seen many people express it, so I feel like I am representing it accurately. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it's incorrect, and not just an opinion, because unlike in Mastodon, moderation is not tied to your instance. Of course, whoever owns an instance can decide to kick someone off of it, but that's not the primary moderation mechanism in BlueSky, which allows you to choose your own set of moderation tools, regardless of which instance you or anyone else belongs to. I linked to the main three posts to understand BlueSky's moderation stances and features upthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39471973 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39471973
    - orthecreedence 3y ago
      > Your parent is not making a technical claim, but a social one: that there will be instances that are effectively unmoderated, because the people who run it hold that up as some kind of ideal, and that that is a problem. Ah that makes sense. Thanks for reframing this. I don't particularly agree either, but I think I now understand the viewpoint better.
- shkkmo 3y ago
  A self hosted instance will have whatever moderation the host chooses to implement (such as CSAM monitoring if required by law.) On top of that, user defined moderation will be applied from block and mute lists. Hopefully this will include using 3rd party lists and eventually, user specified content filters.
numpad0 3y ago
It's always porn, or political extremism. Nobody opposes literal spams, but the definition of former two depends on cultural backgrounds and there will always be demonization around those.

rsynnott 3y ago

> And don’t say “lets defederate with said bad actors” since they would still exist and anyone can join said bad actors instances. Er... fine, and who cares? If everyone defederates (slightly more a nuclear option on Bluesky than Mastodon but still I think possible?), then, well, the bad instance is its own problem. Or are you saying that even an unfederated instance with bad people would be bad? Like, the only solution there is to ban all open-source social networking software.

shkkmo 3y ago

This is entirely by design: > Moderation on Bluesky is not tied to your server, like it is on Mastodon. Defederation, a way of addressing moderation issues in Mastodon by disconnecting servers, is not as relevant on Bluesky because there are other layers to the system. Server operators can set rules for what content they will host, but tools like blocklists and moderation services are what help communities self-organize around moderation preferences. We’ve already integrated block and mute lists, and the tooling for independent moderation services is coming soon. The whole point is to decentralize moderation so that users aren't stuck with only the moderation provided by their host. Decentralized moderation and the tools needed to support it are not solved problems but are instead ongoing projects. Block and mute lists clearly won't be sufficient to enable robust decentralized moderation so it will he interesting to see how support for third party content filters get implemented.