-4
Why Bluesky Remains The Most Interesting Experiment In Social Media, By Far
(www.techdirt.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024
-4 points (48.0% liked)
Technology
59081 readers
3167 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Just because you are not aware doesn't mean they don't exist.
Reading into blahaj.zoje more, plenty of queer folk are friendly and supportive, but plenty are also pieces of shit. Sometimes you may also not realize if you create an echo chamber what is acceptable and what bleeds into extremist rhetoric.
I don't give a crap about "echo chambers". I give a crap about creating a safe environment for a group of folk that are actively under attack.
And that means getting rid of the bigots, not just hiding them
I get wanting a safe space from persecution.
But echo chambers are dangerous and can really distort your reality. I personally find going from a safe space/echo chamber to reality very jarring and much more conflicting than from a relatively safe space with some conflict to reality.
By shutting it all out I'd argue you are risking hurting yourself unless you can guarantee a safe space in every aspect of life which is very difficult.
Echo chambers aren't that bad. I don't surround myself with people and things I like because the ones I don't like are going to hurt me, I do it because I don't like them and my life is too short to waste with their nonsense.
Not as dangerous as the hate trans people face every single day from the government, from media and from society at large.
People need a space where they can let their guard down. Creating that space is my goal.
The sad truth is, no space ever lets us completely let our guard down, but we get as close as we can.
Communities trying to make spaces as safe as possible isn't some slippery slope. This is either disingenuous or ignorant of the reality we face as trans folk.
There are no truly safe spaces for us. Even our safe spaces aren't completely safe, because bad faith folk do their best to make it that way. Yet even so, many of us benefit from spaces that are actively inclusive, and remove bigots. Appeals to slippery slopes, or implications that we simply don't understand how looking after our own needs is somehow bad don't change our lived reality
Not really comparable to ethnic\religious\racial hate anywhere in the civilized world.
OK, I seem to answer lots of your comments not touching the actual core of the subject.
See, "per user" moderation is good because everybody's idea of bigotry is subjective. Bad because it's reactive, as you said, which means it takes effort from the user.
"Per community" is sometimes acceptable, though it always gets ugly over time. I've been a forum mod from time to time in the late 00s, I know what I'm talking about. If you can believe me, I stop being unhinged when handed opportunity to ban people.
"Per instance" is bullshit.
See, this has already been solved for email with client-side spam filters.
Or, with social media, you can in theory have kill-lists (for users and everything they post, or for separate posts), and subscribe to those. So, just like you want, somebody bans a user and everybody subscribed to that kill-list stops seeing them. No effort required, and without compromising others' freedom to read.
I've been building and developing communities, queer and otherwise for decades. I'm also trans, and live it first hand.
The per user approach puts a cost on each and every user, and that cost can sometimes be too much for vulnerable folk dealing with harassment. Blocking the bigot with a throw away account after being exposed to the bigotry is pointless, because the account was going to be abandoned anyway, and you've already been exposed to the raw hate.
It makes it impossible to just have fun and enjoy your social media experience when you're always waiting for the next bigot to drop it.
Instance level blocking resolves a lot of that.
Your theory of what will work just doesn't cut it for many vulnerable folk, and it's not going to start cutting it just because you want to debate the topic.
I've described how it doesn't.
Which doesn't change anything as compared to instance-wide or community-wide moderation. And if you mean that you only want to see approved accounts, that can be done without instance-wide or community-wide moderation too just as well.
Nothing fundamentally prevents you from ignoring a whole instance. Or, from what I described with subscribing to kill-lists, that instance being blocked as a whole in that kill-list.
You people have gotten so used to commercial bullshit that you don't realize how much can be done with simple things.
It obviously does, because what I've described works exactly the same for the user, except for them having a choice.
The issue is that users aren't "instance based" in the same way they are on the fediverse. On the fediverse, instances are communities of like minded folk, so all of the bigots hang out in bigot friendly instances, which I simply defederate from. If they join non bigot friendly instances, they get removed
On Bluesky, bigots don't belong to a particular instance. They just pop up with throw away accounts and have to be dealt with, one by one.
I've been on the fediverse longer than you my friend. I don't use centralised social media of any type.
The issue isn't that I "don't realise", it's that what I want from a social media platform isn't something that Bluesky offers. You want different things to me. Arguing at me as if you can make me want the same things as you is a waste of both of our times.
Bluesky doesn't give me what I need, and it's ultimately that simple
So a person to the kill-list of which you are subscribed does that, playing the role of a mod. There may be a few such people with their kill-lists, united by logical OR. You don't have to do anything.
It's just a better solution for what you claim to want.
Just say honestly that you want to ban some people in bunches and feel that it's your bunch doing it and not you alone.
Yep. After the troll has trolled.
It's reactive moderation, which leads to a shit experience for vulnerable people if that's how the majority of moderation needs are met.
Because fediverse accounts are instance based, and instances have their own rules and communities, bigots tend to cluster with other bigots, and defederating those instances means that proactive moderation ensures that most of the hate coming from bigots never needs to be moderated, because it never arrives in the first place.
Anyway, it seems from the rest of your post that you aren't interested in engaging genuinely, so that's that...
No.
It can be proactive just as well. You'd subscribe to a whitelist instead of a blacklist. Simple.
This doesn't have any mandatory connection to fediverse. Humans build systems.
So finally the only real argument a snowflake has.
And a ban for you
You can kick bigots off a Bluesky PDS.
But letting everyone label accounts and posts and run feeds of moderation advice is a lot quicker at booting someone from the virtual space than waiting around for someone to come and decide that yes, so-and-so really has broken BigPDSHost policy and shall be deleted. It's also a great way to find who you want to boot.
Right, but it's reactive and on a per user basis.
Like, each user is individually kicked off the PDS in reaction to some bad thing they did? Or labeling is reactive in that it labels bad stuff already posted, and each user has to pick labelers to listen to themselves?
I'm not sure if Bluesky's front-end defaults to using some particular labelers. I know there's some moderation going on for you as soon as you log in, done by someone.
But yes, each user has to choose whose moderation decisions they want to use, and they can't rely on everyone they can see also seeing exactly the same space they themselves are seeing. But I'm not sure it's possible or even desirable to get rid of the requirement/ability to choose your mods. I should be able to be in a community that has mods I trust, and the community chatting to itself and determining that so-and-so is a great mod who we should all listen to, and then all listening to them, sounds like a good idea to me.
Being able to see and talk to people who aren't in the same space I'm in might not be as good?
Exactly, because you are nobody to decide for others what they want and don't want to read.
That's literally how moderation on Bluesky works... You choose the people you want to moderate and curate your feed...
No, delegating it consciously being able to change it every moment is fine.
Echo chambers are what leads to those attacs.
No, what leads to those attacks is politicians creating and stoking culture wars, and a media feeding in to that war because it makes them money.
The attacks won't magically stop if trans people just make themselves more open to being attacked. All that will happen is more of us will get hurt or die.
Can confirm, I've had issues with the pieces of shit before, although never on the fediverse.