←back to thread

Bluesky is ushering in a pick-your-own algorithm era of social media

(www.newscientist.com)
190 points amichail | 5 comments | 20 Nov 24 12:59 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
hntempacct99 ◴[20 Nov 24 15:16 UTC] No.42194606[source]▶
From what I have seen using Bluesky this isn't true at all. It's brutally censored, even more than Twitter was in 2021. Or are there other relays and appviews I can use that aren't? Is there a comprehensive list of Bluesky infrastructure that isn't run by Bluesky themselves (excluding a PDS)? Or is it totally centralized for now?
replies(10): >>42194628 #>>42194642 #>>42194671 #>>42194682 #>>42194690 #>>42194767 #>>42194774 #>>42195031 #>>42195409 #>>42195473 #
1. tootie ◴[20 Nov 24 16:24 UTC] No.42195473[source]▶
Personally, I'm 100% on board with heavy moderation. I think it's a complete myth that unfettered free speech will make for a useful platform. Spam, abuse, disinformation, hate speech. They all make the platform less valuable.
replies(1): >>42195508 #
2. zb3 ◴[20 Nov 24 16:26 UTC] No.42195508[source]▶
*as long as it fits my views
replies(1): >>42195682 #
3. tootie ◴[20 Nov 24 16:40 UTC] No.42195682[source]▶
I think this isn't as hard to solve as you may think. There is definitely gray area to all of them, but there's plenty of stuff that is obviously unacceptable. On X right now, it is common to find straight up Nazi propaganda flourishing. That is within the bounds of free speech per the first amendment, but it's almost universally (excluding the actual nazis) derided as hate speech. I don't think banning Nazis is an impossible task nor is it a slippery slope. Getting it exactly right is impossible, but there's plenty you can do without controversy and a robust appeal process could mitigate any gray areas.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/x-twitter-elon-mus...

replies(1): >>42196071 #
4. zb3 ◴[20 Nov 24 17:14 UTC] No.42196071{3}[source]▶
It is a slippery slope because there's a disagreement as to who qualifies as one. We might agree on a given definition, but then it might turn out that the person doing the moderation would regard majority of the population as Nazi, which would be ridiculous and'd actually obscure the actual tragedies that happened...
replies(1): >>42205006 #
5. tootie ◴[21 Nov 24 15:09 UTC] No.42205006{4}[source]▶
Ultimately it's the platform's choice where to draw the line and it should be a function of their ethos and the observed value to users. It seems pretty clear that Twitter functioned extremely well with a robust moderation team of highly professional experts with clear guidance. Switching to a "free speech" model + community notes has resulted in the platform losing it's appeal. Conversely, BlueSky's model has been rapidly attracting users with their moderation policy. So, active moderation is better than none. QED.

Idk if it's because HN is populated with engineers who can't wrap their head around a non-deterministic solution, but a team of humans with a set of goals are capable of dealing with a problem that doesn't have a concretely defined algorithm.