3 ms·

Techdirt's coverage of section 230 has been pretty consistent from before bluesky existed.

pfraze 2y ago
In fact, the causality is reversed; he's on the board due to his influence on us. Masnick wrote the Protocols not Platforms essay which inspired Dorsey to start the Bluesky project. Then Bluesky became the PBC, we launched, became independent, etc etc, and Masnick wasn't involved until the past year when we invited him to join our board. I hope you view his writing and POV as independent from his work with us. On matters like 230 you can find archives of very consistent writing from well before joining.
- stackskipton 2y ago
  TIL. I'll admit, I'm not avid reader of TechDirt, follower of Mike Masnick or care that much about Bluesky since I don't interact a ton with social media. However, my initial feelings are correct. NYT article is bemoaning about Section 230, Mike seems to ignore why those feelings are coming up and burying there might be conflict of interest in caring since I guess BlueSky has algorithms it runs to help users? Again, admitting I know nothing about BlueSky. In any case, I don't think consistent PoV should bypass disclosure of that. His arguments about why Section 230 should be left intact are solid and I agree with some of them. I also think he misses the point that letting algorithms go insane with 100% Section 230 protection may not be best idea. Whether or not Section can be reformed without destroying the internet or if First Amendment gets involved here, I personally don't know.
  - TheCleric 2y ago
    BlueSky’s big selling point is no algorithm by default. It’s default timeline is users you follow in descending chronological order. You can use an algorithm (called a feed) if you like. They provide a few, but also are open about their protocol and allow anyone who wants to write an algorithm to do so, and any user who wants to opt in to using it can.

In fact, the causality is reversed; he's on the board due to his influence on us. Masnick wrote the Protocols not Platforms essay which inspired Dorsey to start the Bluesky project. Then Bluesky became the PBC, we launched, became independent, etc etc, and Masnick wasn't involved until the past year when we invited him to join our board. I hope you view his writing and POV as independent from his work with us. On matters like 230 you can find archives of very consistent writing from well before joining.

stackskipton 2y ago
TIL. I'll admit, I'm not avid reader of TechDirt, follower of Mike Masnick or care that much about Bluesky since I don't interact a ton with social media. However, my initial feelings are correct. NYT article is bemoaning about Section 230, Mike seems to ignore why those feelings are coming up and burying there might be conflict of interest in caring since I guess BlueSky has algorithms it runs to help users? Again, admitting I know nothing about BlueSky. In any case, I don't think consistent PoV should bypass disclosure of that. His arguments about why Section 230 should be left intact are solid and I agree with some of them. I also think he misses the point that letting algorithms go insane with 100% Section 230 protection may not be best idea. Whether or not Section can be reformed without destroying the internet or if First Amendment gets involved here, I personally don't know.
- TheCleric 2y ago
  BlueSky’s big selling point is no algorithm by default. It’s default timeline is users you follow in descending chronological order. You can use an algorithm (called a feed) if you like. They provide a few, but also are open about their protocol and allow anyone who wants to write an algorithm to do so, and any user who wants to opt in to using it can.