←back to thread

Maybe Bluesky has "won"

(anderegg.ca)
461 points GavinAnderegg | 5 comments | 15 Nov 24 19:56 UTC | HN request time: 0.815s | source
Show context
ta8645 ◴[15 Nov 24 20:21 UTC] No.42150508[source]▶
I'm still hoping that X wins. I'm hoping that we learn how to coexist with a diversity of viewpoints. It seems counterproductive to partition everyone up into their own little gardens, without any viable opposition to the dominant views.
replies(13): >>42150517 #>>42150544 #>>42150546 #>>42150559 #>>42150564 #>>42150574 #>>42150668 #>>42150724 #>>42150784 #>>42150812 #>>42150959 #>>42152557 #>>42154057 #
tootie ◴[15 Nov 24 20:26 UTC] No.42150559[source]▶
It is functionally impossible to run an unmoderated message board that doesn't devolve. Holding out hope that "we" learn where "we" is everyone in the world is not going to happen in 1000 years. The only way for a forum to remain civil and useful is for careful moderation to remove troublemakers and it is equally impossible to do that without ever making a mistake.
replies(2): >>42150603 #>>42154299 #
1. ta8645 ◴[15 Nov 24 20:29 UTC] No.42150603[source]▶
You're presenting a false dichotomy. Of course, there will be mistakes. And of course there needs to be moderation. But I support the moderation similar to HN, it's about politeness and respect. As long as you're respectful, you can say your piece.

Also, X does provide community based fact checking too, which works best when there are representatives from all sides participating.

replies(3): >>42150622 #>>42153963 #>>42156372 #
2. ta8645 ◴[15 Nov 24 20:37 UTC] No.42150711[source]▶
Well, i'm in favor of pursuing the ideal, even though it will never be perfect in practice.
3. verdverm ◴[16 Nov 24 03:45 UTC] No.42153963[source]▶
Having participated in the notes system, it largely became another ideological battleground and was too slow to add the, by and large, accurate notes in the end. The majority of views and reactions had already happened

One of the appealing aspects of Bluesky / ATProto is that there can be multiple fact checkers that users can subscribe to, which can have differing governance models, policies, and operations. Within the app, you can decide which ones (more than one even) at an individual level. This means we can have competition, but also echo chambers. It will be interesting to see how it works out

4. johnnyanmac ◴[16 Nov 24 04:37 UTC] No.42154290[source]▶
You are more than free to talk with Dang about any given flag you disagree with. He puts up with it much too kindly. That alone is a grace reddit never gave me.

Downvoting is a user action. There's no real gain to blame the entire community for their individual action against a single comment. Feel free to inquire if you really need to, but half the downvotes I see are pretty explicitly breaking the guidelines.

5. tootie ◴[16 Nov 24 13:45 UTC] No.42156372[source]▶
What about disinformation?