How "decentralized" is it really if they can "crack down" like this?
this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
246 points (92.7% liked)
Technology
60101 readers
2434 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It isn’t
Many people get bent out of shape they can't ban people fediverse wide lol
As if they completely misunderstood the point of fedi
Let them spend few more years on bluesky then when it enshittifies, they maybe will understand
How do you mean they misunderstood the point?
Do you mean like that instead of banning you just squelch them instance by instance, solve the problem that way?
That doesn't really help disrupt the thing causing the problem. Really just ignoring it.
I don't know enough about this to have a strong opinion, and again I'm not even sure if that's what you meant. School me.
How do you mean they misunderstood the point?
They want people who they don't like to completely removed from a platform like it is done on reddit when commentary is not sanctioned. Fedi's system inherently can't enable this because of decentralization.
Another one, is that someone will get upset because person they blocked can still leave comments under their comments that they don't see. They don't like that person they blocked can still opine in the discussion.
Do you mean like that instead of banning you just squelch them instance by instance, solve the problem that way?
I am not following this. But the general idea of Fedi, you can get kicked out from a bar but not the town.
The idea that social media website can ban you generally because reddit admin decided so is what fedi is addressing among other issues with centralization.
Granted you can still get banned every hot bar in the town but that requires you piss every fucking server admin lol
Outside of people that use federated services, most people don't give a fuck about federation.
Well, Bluesky claims to be a federated service, so I guess people should consider whether or not the service they are backing is capable of fulfilling its promises.
load more comments
(1 replies)
End users really need to just be more skeptical. Big names need to register their own domain and point people to those places.
"X need to just..." is a surefire way to never change anything. People will never just. They won't.
Gotta be careful with those variable labels…
Early on with twitter, I always wondered how people knew that a celebrity account was real or not. I was bothered by how trusting people were in, what was essentially the honor system. At least with bsky and mastodon, you can register a domain or use your already existing domain as part of your username.
load more comments
(1 replies)
End users really need to just be more skeptical.
That's.... The opposite of a solution.
This is how you make systemic problems worse, not better.
Humans are largely morons, you can't fix this. But you can fix the systems they interact with to avoid their vulnerabilities from being taken advantage of.
But how much do I trust the central authority that would be in charge of implementing that?
Personally, we, individual people, should just be calling out others spreading BS. There's been more then a few times someone has brought me something fishy sounding, I've responded with "and did you hear about that on facebook?"
It takes too much time and resources. A lie runs halfway around the world before the truth laces up it's shoes.
Manipulators and liars need to be stopped by a higher authority. I'm fine with that authority being civil liability, the criminal justice system obviously sucks at it. Let's get serious and stop letting this stochastic terrorism go unpunished.
Lose your dad to Fox News conspiracies? Should be able to sue Fox News for child support. Lose your husband to a mass shooting caused by some deranged Trumper that thinks Paul Pelosi is coming to take our guns? Should be able to sue trump personally for wrongful death. It's not like Fox and Trump don't know what the consequences are.
Let juries be the arbiters.
This problem isn't going to be solved without financial liability or violence.
Well yeah that's a problem of course but that doesn't negate the reasoning I stated in other areas of this thread.
I'm not promoting trust in a central authority or government here that's a separate problem that exists on an entirely different plane.
Yes you who probably has some amount of critical thinking skills can do that. The majority of young generational individuals today, cannot. Which largely negates the "well they should get gud" argument. It's a systematic problem, you can't solve systematic problems that way....
I'm not going to repeat myself though, my last paragraph in the previous message is a fairly succinct tldr. This is a principal that's been applied and works across industries, and is critically important for building "safe systems"
Safe systems being systems that are designed to be operated and interacted with safely. There is a practical infinite number of safe systems that you can find examples of to further drive my point home. We can design systems that provide safety from human behavior and failings, the largest obstacle is usually both the political aspect and the aspect of individuals who refuse to acknowledge that safe systems are important.
Lol if you think it's the young people who can't do critical thinking, I'd like you to take a look at the Trump voter base.
Trust it as much as it shows itself to have your interests in mind, or how well you judge it to be working towards the intended purpose.
I don't necessarily trust info that claims to have my interest in mind because that how con artists approach their marks. They find a common problem, then confidently proclaim that have the perfect solution.
I said "shows itself to" not "claims it does". Big difference.
Is there a difference on social media? Unless they cite sources or I independently verify it, how are those different?
load more comments
(3 replies)
Theres two ways of looking at safe systems,
- People are idiots and will get themselves hurt. The machine should prevent them to keep them safe at all costs.
Or
- without guardrails, people are vulnerable idiots and I am too. Let the machine prevent them until they understand and accept the risk.
As memtioned elsewhere in the thread, political pressure prevents implementation of safe systems. I absolutely love safeguards and being safe because foot guns are nasty. (Its why Rust is a great language.) but I will fight against things clearly created under the former philosophy because it locks people out of their own property. Because sometimes the "safety" is an excuse for controlling behavor.
"foot guns are nasty"?
It's a programing term that comes from the phrase "shooting yourself in the foot". Come to think about it, a loaded gun is a great example of safety mechinisms.
Yep that makes sense. Thanks!
"Mr Cook, why isn't your company's bluesky account just Apple?"
"Apple was taken. We respect the guff of the individual that currently holds that account. And will be using our current account going forward."
"Do you feel that people may not associate [email protected] easily with the company?"
"Look... we respect the individual, but we're clearly not happy with the situation."
Apple would just register [email protected]. We already know Apple computers owns apple.com. Tim Cook would own [email protected] for official CEO press releases.
I live in a better world.
A sillier world.
So basically Bluesky is going to have to speedrun the first 5 years of Twitter.
Well they're not doing a great job because I just checked and the Bethesda shitpost account is still alive.
That account is following part of the rules that are being enforced.
Bluesky stated, "Parody, satire, or fan accounts are allowed on Bluesky, but they must clearly label themselves in both the display name and bio to help others know the account isn't official."
They don't appear to be labeling in both the display name and bio, just the bio, so aren't they breaking the rule?
That account is following part of the rules that are being enforced.
Yes, it is breaking the part about not having the name be clearly labeled but my guess is that they are going to let the ones with a clear bio explanation be last on the list to crack down on. Nitpicking whether the account is clearly labeled is extremely vague and they are going to have fun trying to sort out what that actually means.
What do they expect a parody account name to look like?
Ah, I didn't gather that you were implying that they were doing a partial enforcement so I was confused.
That notice must've been brand new because it wasn't there when I looked haha
All they need to do is let people keep their original bsky handle when they switch to domain verification. You'd still see some copycat accounts, but the barrier of entry is now higher as it would require someone to purchase a lookalike domain name
"Parody, satire, or fan accounts are allowed on Bluesky, but they must clearly label themselves in both the display name and bio to help others know the account isn't official."
Seems ok to me?
That's not going to help make people want to switch to your platform.
Why? I don't see the harm in labelling parody and impersonation accounts.
load more comments
(3 replies)
(considering what’s left behind on Xitter, that’s probably a good thing)
And the enshittification begins...
Look who started it. Look who’s been enthusiastically promoting it the past month or two.
You guys need to learn how to spot a honeypot.
view more: next ›