5 ms·
The idea of users choosing their moderation provider which is independent of their hosting provider so they don’t have to worry too much about choice of instanc
by Angostura 3y ago
The idea of users choosing their moderation provider which is independent of their hosting provider so they don’t have to worry too much about choice of instance sounds cool, except that I imagine that instances will still have to moderate to avoid falling foul of hosting locally illegal content.
This feels like it could end up being quite difficult for people running instances and end up as a big of a mess. It may be that I have misunderstood, however.
- davidgerard 3y agoyou haven't. Bluesky decentralisation is fake. A PDS is a reasonable Ubuntu box, but even this post admits that a relay is a huge expensive central point of control. What's the Bluesky plan for spam? Block it at the relay, maybe. The DID server is the other central point of control. But sure, go wild with PDSes.
- steveklabnik 3y agoIt is true that folks who host content will have to deal with the legal repercussions of the content that they host, and that inevitably, they will have to deal with this. That's true no matter what protocols you're using to host, however.
- Angostura 3y agoYeh, but part of the promise of Bluesky is 'your moderation regimes is picked by you and it's not linked to your host'. Except it is so now your moderation regime is determined by two entities, not one.