11 ms·
I'm interested to see how Bluesky ends up handling bad actors in the long-term. Will they have the resources to keep up? Or will it become polluted like the oth
by voat 2y ago
I'm interested to see how Bluesky ends up handling bad actors in the long-term. Will they have the resources to keep up? Or will it become polluted like the other large platforms.
Also, if a part of their business model will be based off selling algorithmic feeds, won't that mean more spam is actually good for their bottom line because they'll sell more algorithmic feeds that counter the spam?
- paxys 2y agoThe AT Protocol already accounts for this. There will eventually be community-built content labelers and classifers that you can subscribe to to rank and moderate your own feed however you want.
- luckylion 2y agoI understand the moderators working for the big social networks have a terrible job and often see the worst the internet has to offer. Who is going to do that job as a volunteer? Or is that expected to be solved by technology? Hard to imagine them achieving what Google, Facebook etc could not reliably.
- dartos 2y agoThe internet has been run on volunteer moderators for a long long long long long time.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoindeed. and I think the one thing we can agree on is that moderation does not scale gracefully. We aren't in the 00's anymore.
- bdangubic 2y agoyou really think Google/Facebook/… can’t do it reliably? :-)
- moogly 2y agoAs an example, Facebook has a sordid history of leaving actual snuff movies up for days.
- bdangubic 2y agoif there are no reprocussions businesses won’t do jacksh*t but if there were, FB/Google/… would solve any issue like this by the time teapot started whistling… it is one thing to say they “can’t” vs. “the won’t cause they no reason to”
- luckylion 2y agoI mean they cannot do it _automatically_ with high certainty, which is why they hire companies to do it for them, who then make employees look at suspected problematic content / reported content. I'm sure Google and Facebook wouldn't pay these companies if they could achieve similar results without them.
- VancouverMan 2y agoSome people seem to get immense satisfaction and pleasure out of censoring other people online. It's something I've seen time and time again, in a wide variety of discussions forums, for decades now. Such people will happily do it for free, and they're willing to dedicate many hours per day to it, too. I don't understand their motivation(s), but perhaps it simply gives them a sense of power, control, or influence that they otherwise don't have in their lives outside of the Internet.
- wmf 2y agoThose people should never be allowed to moderate anything for obvious reasons.
- kiba 2y agoModeration. It's a thankless job. I supposed blocking spam counts as censorship.
- darkerside 2y agoPraying he doesn't take this the wrong way, but perhaps /u/dang would be so kind as to weigh in? I don't equate what he does on a daily basis to censoring, but I'm certain it constitutes a part of the job (after all, this is the Internet, and I'm sure there's all manner of trash making an appearance on occasion). Furthermore, I would posit that there's a bit of overlap between censorship and moderation -- even excellent moderation -- although I welcome any nuance I'm missing on this topic. Moreover, while I hope he is compensated well enough, I imagine this was initially, if not any longer, a job that demanded effort disproportionate to the monetary reward. What would keep someone interested in such a job and naturally driven to perform it well? Coming from a place of curiosity, meaning no offense, and happy to let this comment slip quietly away to a back room to sit alone if that's what it merits.
- astrange 2y ago> Furthermore, I would posit that there's a bit of overlap between censorship and moderation -- even excellent moderation -- although I welcome any nuance I'm missing on this topic. You aren't missing anything. Many people have oppositional defiance disorder and have never used an unmoderated forum; they are completely unusable because they're full of spam.
- PontifexMinimus 2y ago> Who is going to do that job as a volunteer There could be a system whereby if you see something bad in your feed you can report it.
- Waterluvian 2y agoI have a feeling that this is going to create a weird thing of some magnitude where accounts end up on popular blacklists for poor reasons and have no recourse. I’m concerned that in time it might develop into zealous communities of samethink where you have to mind any slightly dissenting opinion or you’ll get blacklisted. I think what I’m thinking about is essentially that judges cannot be replaced by community opinion. (Not that Twitter moderation was less bad).
- swatcoder 2y agoThere's ultimately no getting around that kind of segmentation. You can't make everybody read what you want them to read. If you don't let people control what they encounter, whether by signing up for aggressively moderated communities or subscribing to automated curators or just manually black/white-listing as they see fit, they'll find themselves dissatisfied with all the noise and move on. Unmoderated social media is not a solution to "zealous communities" and "samethink" -- through self-selection, it just becomes a haven for whatever zealotry or samethink happens to organically dominate it.
- jfengel 2y agoLack of moderation is a kind of moderation itself. It allows the loudest and most unpleasant voices to drown out everything else. "Shout louder and have a thicker skin" isn't really conducive to thoughtful discussion. It seems to me that "say whatever you want and others have the ability to decide not to listen" is about as good a compromise as you can hope for.
- CuriousCosmic 2y ago> I have a feeling that this is going to create a weird thing of some magnitude where accounts end up on popular blacklists for poor reasons and have no recourse. This actually has already kind of occurred with moderation lists and the solution has generally been to strike down list managers who abuse their authority and block them (as you can't normally add someone who has blocked you to their lists).
- 2y ago
- evbogue 2y agoIf AT was distributed using a signed hash message protocol combined with a simple replication strategy (perhaps only replicating a friend and the friends friends) to spread those posts out between their PDSes this burden of moderation would fall less upon the shoulders of their main PDS. As always I refer the conversion to the ssb API documentation[1] for an example of how AT could have been made. [1] https://scuttlebot.io/ https://scuttlebot.io/
- crabmusket 2y agoFor context, one of the core Bluesky developers was very involved in Scuttlebutt. It was a deliberate decision to not make AT more similar to SSB. https://www.pfrazee.com/blog/why-not-p2p https://www.pfrazee.com/blog/why-not-p2p
- evbogue 2y agoDig it dude. The original Patchwork was great until it didn't scale. Paul's got an amazing eye for design though, always has. My point is centralization casts the burdon of moderation upon the centralizers.
- sojournerc 2y agoRelevant username. Voat definitely fell victim to bad actors. Are you a creator/founder?
- dyauspitr 2y agoVoat specifically selected for bad actors.
- sojournerc 2y agoThere was an influx of less than savory characters after reddit censorship of some unfortunate subs, but I don't think voat was created for "bad actors", which is why OP's question is relevant.