Hacker News Reader

Comment by smoothjazz | Hacker News Reader

Doesn't this go against the comic in the post that claims that it's easy to block what you don't want to see? Also that it's an open network? Why not just let everyone in if the moderation tools are good?

I definitely would never give my phone number to a social network.

View on HN

The SMS verification requirement is only for the Bluesky operated PDS host. Soon (this month) it will be possible for others to self-host their own PDS hosts that do not have this requirement.

how will the bluesky PDS deal with the flood of spammers on malicious PDSs, like, why is the phone number a useful gatekeeping tool if you're just going to fling open the gates at the end of the month?

We do have an anti-abuse tool to help flag abuse. It is obviously important that PDS operators not allow themselves to become overrun with abusive users.

Anyone technical can run their own single-user or low-user-count PDS and probably not have to worry about any problems.

Having good tools to increase the quality of your network doesn't mean you should willingly let the whole network decline in quality.

You assume that requiring a phone number increases quality instead of decreases it. I see it as a filter to keep thoughtful people off the platform.

Let's say you just eliminate the requirement altogether. What percentage of non-phone number signups are going to be "thoughtful people" compared to bots?

Sure you'll get people who refuse to sign up with a real phone number, that's a given. Some percentage of those people will be "thoughtful." You'll also eliminate a huge number of bots, automated signups, etc.

It's hard to argue letting all those bots on will not decrease system quality.

do you have an example of a platform that does not require a phone number for sms verification and is filled with bots? we have many that use sms verification and are infested with abusive content and bots.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com