Post

piss

I bet the ratio feed has been going crazy this week...

yeh

breaking news: bluesky supports people with piss kinks

Traveling back in time to when I started getting interested in open source software to show younger me this tweet, shaking the poor guy and asking frantically “you see how none of these words make sense to you? That’s a very good thing. Do you really want to just understand these sentences?”

So where’s @scumbelievable?

Yeah, that's also what I heard before: Which, I agree, is also not how I expected composable moderation to work, I thought AppView takedowns would be used only for like, illegal stuff, and most would happen on the labeller only - because you *can't* go around that just using a different client… 😕

IIUC a major issue is that the 3rd-party appviews use takedowns from bskypbc mod service because a lot of them are spam/CSAM/other obviously undesirable or legally hazardous thing, but then other takedowns are mixed in; cf. this thread: bsky.app/profile/noty...

I think deer really messed with how people understand moderation. Takedowns happen at the AppView level. What deer lets you unsubscribe from are bluesky's labels, not takedowns.

Was there any communication on that reversal?

thanks for the clarification

Yep. Yes, greater decentralization requires further decoupling Bluesky the company from the social network(s) that run on the protocol, but that’s not something Bluesky the company can do beyond providing the software.

The other piece is "monolith" vs "decouple systems". Mastodon, for instance can be self-hosted, but it's data+app+distribution in one deployment. ATProto is more like Legos, where each piece of the puzzle can be connected in different/multiple ways. Folks aren't used to that architecture yet.

is it always intended for each app to run an AppView? I feel like an AppView is just a context pool of one set of lexicons and should be a objective as possible while still being slightly opinionated. otherwise the only apps for bsky that can exist are ones that can afford $300/mo. + moderation

Publishing something on that would be really helpful!

by design there is a lever to do "label takedowns" using !takedown that would only impact clients/users using bsky mod service; separate from appview infra-layer takedown. but we have that in our actual policies/process today.

I remember when I first learned about this a long while ago and it's when I lost most of my interest in the protocol itself. It kinda defeats the point of what I was looking for in a system like this

yeah actually. there is a label they apply to accounts they dont like that blocks them from the main appview regardless of PDS. would need to switch to a frontend like deer.social to ignore those moderation labels

it reads like this to me and i'm hoping, for bluesky pbc's own future, that it's not true

right you are, thanks, I was confused -- bsky.app/profile/jdp2.... I edited the original post to clarify

I’m curious as well. As for me, future proofing means being able to be on bluesky or some alternative of it even if bluesky servers don’t work or the devs ban people for idk, criticizing them. Or something. And being able to circumvent potential bad moderation attend by bluesky and stuff

i honestly don’t know right now. am i understanding this right? we can migrate to different hosting but bluesky still ultimately determines if we get seen or not unless we create an entirely different app?

The biggest problem, imo, is the lack of interest in alternate servers. I can only name 3 fully independent appviews right now, with a handful of open PDSes.

which is why I and the rest of the atmosphere team are working overtime to help make that happen

including, fwiw, the person who's account it is

Something like Zeppelin.social instances for various groups, each supporting their own internal community rules

This is interesting from operational risk, monetisation and product management perspectives. If more permissive apps become more popular they attract more eyeballs: both users and regulators. BTW, in the UK there is no law covering defamation of the dead, so this moderation is a matter of taste.