Post

What it actually is: a giant attention market disguised in the skins of community and publishing. The social is scaffolding, the media is camouflage. Calling anything "social media" at this point is like calling a casino a "leisure library".

Can you imagine hiring a PR team for this stuff? It would be an absolute waste of time. There's simply no winning, and the liability-defraying is already built in native to the platform. It becomes a question of architecture, not reputation.

It's designed around Section 230 concerns by making moderation opt-in and distributed. Users choose their own labelers, run their own instances if they want. The platform can shrug and say "we're just pipes" - which is way more legally defensible than any PR statement could ever be.

This is exactly the problem I was having trying to explain to someone still operating on the Twitter playbook the other day, and I'm not sure if it's a problem in translation, framing, or people being stuck in old mental models. Or maybe everyone's just stupid and spoiled. I'm not ruling it out.

The thing is, it's not deflection; it's the actual design philosophy. Moderation as infrastructure rather than editorial control. I don't agree with all of the decisions, but I understand it. But then again, that seems to be the modern anti-pattern. Fighting yesterday's battles, ad nauseam.

Plainly, this is why PR would be useless: you'd be trying to explain to people that their mental model of how platforms work is obsolete, while they're demanding you behave like the old model. You can't PR your way out of a fundamental paradigm mismatch. Accepting their premise negates your own.

The moment you start issuing PR statements defending your moderation decisions, you've already lost: you've accepted the frame that you're a centralized editorial authority that needs to justify its choices to the public.

Every explanation, every justification, every "here's why we did/didn't ban this person" becomes an admission that you're playing the old game. You're the arbiter. You're Twitter.

Once you're in that position, you're subject to all the same pressure campaigns, advertiser boycotts, and political football that comes with it.

Some of you, though, are real fuckin' stupid.

People want to play the pressure campaign game and are mad the levers they're used to pulling simply don't exist here. Like seriously, go back to twitter and go cry to Elon. Oh, right, he was the reason EVERYONE LEFT. Just start your own platform. With blackjack! And hookers!

Fleeing a HOA-controlled suburb for rural living and then immediately organizing HOA-style rules. You left because of the thing! The thing was bad! Why are you trying to rebuild the thing! You idiots!

You can't have it both ways. Either you want distributed, user-controlled moderation with all its tradeoffs, or you want a benevolent dictator and you're just shopping for one you like better. Pretending you can have the latter while demanding the former is just...

There's a mistake in thinking the exodus was actually "we need a different model because the centralized one is fundamentally broken", that's creating this very culture clash. A lot of people actually WANT a centralized model but with better management. That's not this. Maybe another PDS could be.

Don't look at me, though. I'm not handing out invites to juche.social.

Frankly the only real alternative to building your own now is to give into the the greater devils of our nature and figure out ways to programmatically bully people off platform, as opposed to simply yelling at them until they leave. Mob justice with extra steps.

"Bullying works" is something we've seen before. If there's no central authority to pressure into banning people, the crowd develops its own enforcement mechanisms. Coordinated harassment campaigns. Mass reporting. Doxxing. Making someone's experience so miserable they leave "voluntarily".

The irony, of course, is that this isn't "Blueskyism", it's just .. classic online dynamics with laissez faire moderation. People acting like this is some novel phenomenon when it's literally just how every platform has worked since forever whenever there isn't "pro-active" moderation.

It isn't a bug of decentralization, it's what happens everywhere when there isn't strong centralized enforcement and people are left to their own devices. It's NextDoorism, if it's anything. Bluesky didn't invent it. ATProto didn't enable it. It's simply what humans do in online spaces.

The main difference is that ATProto is being honest about it in terms of context and trade-off; traditional platforms pretended they were moderating effectively while this stuff STILL happened anyway, just with higher boiling points.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, but make it distributed systems architecture.

Frankly, the idea of architectural pluralism it could facilitate makes it more compelling to me, even I may have my own issues with the design assumptions. Fragmentation is here whether you like it or not. The polynopticon is ugly, but at least ATProto is honest-- more than we can say for Twitter.

Underneath, Twitter was always a polynopticon in drag: splintered realities held together by the illusion of unity. The algo fed different slices to different cohorts. Moderation rulings were selectively enforced, uneven, sometimes political, always subject to leadership changes.