BlueSky Ain’t It
wired.com
wired.com
I dont get it, people who use twitter and have migrated to mastodon or bluesky or whatever, will be the same toxic level nonsense. what has that got to do with the tech?
what do these tech journos know about the underlying technologies, activitypub for example and how can they "feel" if a tehc is good or bad depending on the community that uses it?
example.
1. mastodon= twitter outlaws.
2. pleroma= manga / emoji
oh, also, how do you say a tech is good or bad by the values publicly potrayed by the dev, primary or one of the dozens?
like for example, rebased is said to be bad because it is used by trumps social network and the dev is helping them.
same for mastodon. or pleroma or some other thing?
shouldn't the mastodon v pleroma v twitter v bluesky v nostr be on the technical specs, which one is more open or more restrictive or light on resources or more manageable or more accessible or some other objective metric?
To avoid the toxic nature of Twitter you need to allow recursively organized entities/communities which moderate themselves locally, not globally.
In this case you can both allow the "virtuous" to group and be protected as a group, but also the "vicious" to group and be isolated as a group. Unfortunately our understanding of systems is so piss poor, no social media is doing this that I'm aware of.
Well I could say Reddit's subreddits are a step in that direction, although very crude, and the moderators scheme is less than ideal. Let's say more mini-monarchy than mini-democracy.
Check out jay’s (ceo of bluesky) posts on composable moderation and algorithmic choice.
AI is optimizing for criteria which doesn't match what a person wants. Reacting to posts doesn't mean the person wanted to see them at all. All those algorithms are laughable at close inspection, at best they optimize for profit through dopamine traps & creating friction of controversy and echo chambers, under the guise of having to select for the user as the user can't select for themselves.