@lauren Im still trying to confirm if this is their actual policy. That no user or server admin in bluesky can actually ban or delete content, but only end users can choose to see, or not see it.
So far, from what I see, it might be that later scenario.
@lauren I was kinda amazed that any social network would launch with what in essence was a "Show bloody gore, spam and hate, and fake account content" toggle, too.
I was HOPING that like the Fediverse that each admin of a BlueSky service can mute or block or ban such content for all. But not sure that is so, yet.
@tchambers @lauren I don't believe "instance" admins have any say over what content federates and what doesn't.
As in, instances (or "nodes" in BS parlance, I think?) are just account/data storage. Admins, as far as I know, have no agency and barely any power in the system.
@lauren @tchambers I am too lazy to dig for it right now but I remember reading in their docs pretty explicit mentions that whole point is that from the user's perspective it should not matter which instance they are on.
I mean, even here:
https://atproto.com/guides/faq
> Account portability is the major reason why we chose to build a separate protocol. We consider portability to be crucial because it protects users from sudden bans, server shutdowns, and policy disagreements.
@lauren @tchambers also this:
https://atproto.com/guides/overview#speech-reach-and-moderation
> ATP's model is that speech and reach should be two separate layers, built to work with each other. The “speech” layer should remain neutral, distributing authority and designed to ensure everyone has a voice. The “reach” layer lives on top, built for flexibility and designed to scale.
"Speech" is what nodes do, "reach" is what (winner-takes-all bigger-is-better) recommendation algorithms do.
Node admins have no say over recco algos.
I read the same, but interpreted it differently. It's bad, but different bad?
I read it as:
* User data is stored in Merkle trees. Basically github repos where each post, like, comment etc, is like a commit.
* Each commit author is a DID, which is stable.
* You can host your GitHub repo of activity on any host. That's the "speech" part. You can set up your own lil nazi repo if you want.
* But search indexes across hosts. That's the "reach" part. Host admins filter
@dr2chase @lauren @rysiek @tchambers
Very much so. "Freedom of speech, not freedom of reach" makes sense, but rhymes with things that, well, let's call them "1A absolutists," love to say.
I'm also getting a "moderation is super hard and super expensive! Let's outsource it to instance admins!" flavor.
It'll be interesting to see what moderation decisions the main BlueSky instance makes when they're tested.
My ideal world is something like the Hachyderm team runs an AT protocol instance.
@mekkaokereke @dr2chase @lauren @rysiek
I am hopeful for, and looking to help support an ActivtyPub <--> BlueSky bridge.
@tchambers @mekkaokereke @dr2chase @lauren @rysiek Given BlueSky’s copyright policy, won’t such a bridge effectively be illegal?
Attached: 1 image @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] Bluesky is not actually federated (yet). It’s built on a closed, proprietary, copyrighted protocol. They own your data. Bluesky is not comparable to Mastodon on anything but a micron-thin, superficial level. https://icosahedron.website/@bitbear/110284465013958645 https://mashable.com/article/bluesky-twitter-terms-of-service
@bitbear this is getting better and better.
@bitbear @tchambers @mekkaokereke @dr2chase @lauren @rysiek
the license mentions "Bluesky Web Services", so prob the operators of bsky.social. idk how this would work but this couldn't hold up in court.
@mekkaokereke @dr2chase @lauren @rysiek @tchambers The question is whether folks like the Hachyderm team would be on solid technical/legal ground to do so.
In the AP/Masto federation model, each instance hosts (+ publishes) a partial copy of the entire Fediverse as *produced* or *seen* by accounts there. Bad content may exist outside that copy, but moderation literally removes it from the copy you're hosting.
@mekkaokereke @dr2chase @lauren @rysiek @tchambers In these sorts of replication-centric models, moderation is all about what's allowed within your copy.
Logged-in users of that instance can grow the replica by posting or boosting content. Other Fediverse users can add to that replica by replying to or mentioning folks there.
Mods can prune or block any of that, to control what everyone sees via URLs from that instance.
@mekkaokereke @dr2chase @lauren @rysiek @tchambers So far, it's much less clear what the corresponding story will be for folks running AT/bsky instances.
Specifically, does content from a user's PDS (personal data server) ever get replicated anywhere else, or is it always accessed directly from a canonical source?
Does the AT protocol allow (or require) unmoderated access to all content from the PDS at a given instance?
@pevohr @mekkaokereke @dr2chase @lauren @rysiek
👍 Exactly this question. Yes.