3 ms·

Does Bluesky allow different federations to require everyone they federate with to share a block list? Mastodon has this problem and it makes it where you have

Does Bluesky allow different federations to require everyone they federate with to share a block list? Mastodon has this problem and it makes it where you have to have multiple accounts if you actually want to use the platform. This might sound like not a problem, but it'll naturally lead to whatever account has access to 51% of your content being the one you use consistently, and you eventually just forget about the other 49%.

steveklabnik 3y ago
I linked to primary sources on moderation upthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39471973 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39471973 Block lists don't work at the instance level, so the answer to your question isn't just "no", but that it is impossible.
- vidarh 3y ago
  Only in the strictest sense and if you assume nobody will build graphs of interactions to use to block instead.
  - steveklabnik 3y ago
    Sure, I was assuming "within the context of the protocol," because if we're willing to step out of that, then literally anything can happen.
    - vidarh 3y ago
      It's a fairly safe assumption in this instance given how important these features are for people - either BlueSky will never get much traction, or people will add ways to achieve the same result. Personally, I'm not very block-happy, but I still have a few instance-wide blocks in place for my even my single-person instance on Mastodon because there are literally a few instances full of nazis, run by nazis, where blocking one puts you at risk of brigading. I'm in a privileged enough position to have relatively little to worry about, but this also extends to a safety issue for a lot of communities, where harassment and threats spill over into the "real world", and where being able to put in place broad, expansive blocks to minimize the ability for individuals who consider themselves "wronged" by one of their victims to utilize their communities to strike is the bare minimum when there isn't a central authority putting efforts into getting rid of these users.
      - steveklabnik 3y ago
        I agree that blocking is important. I just think that the framing here is very mastodon centric, and not really a thing that makes sense given how BlueSky works. For example, due to having true account portability, if you tried to block a particular instance, they could just move to another one to evade that block. You need to block the account to prevent this. If there’s an instance that hands out usernames as a subdomain, you could write a moderation service that takes that into account, but then they could transition to their own username, stay on the same PDS, and that would no longer work. The more BlueSky native way would be to run a moderation service that tags accounts, and then a blocklist that bans accounts that get the tag. You’d then want to tag accounts that post from that PDS, and now, even if they move, they’re still blocked. That is to say, “you can’t really do that” doesn’t mean that that isn’t important or impossible, just that different protocols require different means of implementing requirements.
vidarh 3y ago
After a couple of years on Mastodon this has just never been an issue for me. If it is one for you, nothing stops you from using s client that supports multiple accounts. But people banding together to not just block proven bad people (by whatever criteria) but also those who closely associate with them will happen in any federated system one way or other, because blocking at an individual level is too cumbersome.

steveklabnik 3y ago

I linked to primary sources on moderation upthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39471973 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39471973 Block lists don't work at the instance level, so the answer to your question isn't just "no", but that it is impossible.

vidarh 3y ago
Only in the strictest sense and if you assume nobody will build graphs of interactions to use to block instead.
- steveklabnik 3y ago
  Sure, I was assuming "within the context of the protocol," because if we're willing to step out of that, then literally anything can happen.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    It's a fairly safe assumption in this instance given how important these features are for people - either BlueSky will never get much traction, or people will add ways to achieve the same result. Personally, I'm not very block-happy, but I still have a few instance-wide blocks in place for my even my single-person instance on Mastodon because there are literally a few instances full of nazis, run by nazis, where blocking one puts you at risk of brigading. I'm in a privileged enough position to have relatively little to worry about, but this also extends to a safety issue for a lot of communities, where harassment and threats spill over into the "real world", and where being able to put in place broad, expansive blocks to minimize the ability for individuals who consider themselves "wronged" by one of their victims to utilize their communities to strike is the bare minimum when there isn't a central authority putting efforts into getting rid of these users.
    - steveklabnik 3y ago
      I agree that blocking is important. I just think that the framing here is very mastodon centric, and not really a thing that makes sense given how BlueSky works. For example, due to having true account portability, if you tried to block a particular instance, they could just move to another one to evade that block. You need to block the account to prevent this. If there’s an instance that hands out usernames as a subdomain, you could write a moderation service that takes that into account, but then they could transition to their own username, stay on the same PDS, and that would no longer work. The more BlueSky native way would be to run a moderation service that tags accounts, and then a blocklist that bans accounts that get the tag. You’d then want to tag accounts that post from that PDS, and now, even if they move, they’re still blocked. That is to say, “you can’t really do that” doesn’t mean that that isn’t important or impossible, just that different protocols require different means of implementing requirements.

vidarh 3y ago

After a couple of years on Mastodon this has just never been an issue for me. If it is one for you, nothing stops you from using s client that supports multiple accounts. But people banding together to not just block proven bad people (by whatever criteria) but also those who closely associate with them will happen in any federated system one way or other, because blocking at an individual level is too cumbersome.