Post

Spooky Key 🎃 🗝🦊✅
@keytryer.net

I do actually like what Bluesky could have been, the idea of a real decentralized social media with a free and open API based on a complex graph network. I'm not even against the blocking feature, but I think it could have been handled differently. But,

0 reposts11 likes

Spooky Key 🎃 🗝🦊✅
@keytryer.net

Several things went wrong: 1. Blocklists are one-sided, can't be removed, and allows power users to blanket ban and slander others, taking control of the network. 2. It should never have implemented dedicated moderation. Moderation should be handled by node owners and users.

Spooky Key 🎃 🗝🦊✅
@keytryer.net

3. Likewise, nodes should have been able to defederate or disconnect from other nodes. 4. Verification is stupid. Verification should be obvious and inherent, not a centralized body. For example, if someone's handle is "@cnn.net" that already certified that they're a journalist.

Spooky Key 🎃 🗝🦊✅
@keytryer.net

How's that different from Mastodon? Mastodon has massive trouble with user identity. Someone can't transfer their identity to another node without starting from scratch. The goal of Bluesky should have been to make a portable system that enforces single user identity and history.

Spooky Key 🎃 🗝🦊✅
@keytryer.net

Bluesky started with this goal but the population thought it was Twitter 2. So they demanded that everything should be centralized, with strong central moderation, and a governing body (whom they hate). A lot of journalists wanted to make a home on Bluesky and instead of--

Banda Bassotti
@orpach.neocities.org

They did decentralise verification a tiny bit. e.g. some accounts are verified by news orgs/the EU rather than @bsky.app itself. Trusting your own additional verifiers like witchsky would be ideal, but would be confusing to most users. mu adds their own additional verifiers too.