Why push an update that is undoubtedly a net negative when the company itself suggests that it's not the best solution?
What solution would you propose that's better than this one and how is this solution a net negative (personally I think labelling services are a great approach to the problem)?
This is the polar opposite of that. Delete all opinions you disagree with, no matter the reasons.
Echo chambers are not productive. Full stop. It will lead to worse outcomes.
I would have a different opinion if they weren't advertising this as a general-purpose way to shut people up. This could work if it were just a method to remove "rule-breaking" posts where some authority would still evaluate the reason for removal.
Bluesky, with ATProto, is putting more control into the author and user hands. You may not like this design change, but many people do. The nice thing about ATProto is that you can write a different UI that doesn't hide or allow for this, and still belong to the social network fabric at large. You don't have to rebuild a new, separate social network from scratch
Community Notes doesn't address dog piling though. And unlike twitter, Bluesky & ATProto have no concept of private accounts so when you get dog piled you can't just go priv like you can on twitter until things cool off.
This is specifically addressing that problem. i.e. Addressing toxicity. It's not about trying to correct misinformation.
The post mentions misinformation in this section only in the context that QRTs are a common way of addressing misinformation and that allowing you to detach could reduce QRTs ability to do that.
So while Community Notes should be a preferred method of addressing misinfo, it doesn't do anything to allow users to disengage or avoid toxicity (which is the point of this blog post).
Like these are low stakes. If someone wants to hide polite disagreement, that's cool, they're managing what it means to be their follower and if I don't like it I can stop following them. It has nothing to do with me personally and they're not obligated to receive disagreement because I want them to, that's a weird position to take.
I don't want a community where people all agree with me but I do want a community free of chronic trolls who only poison the well.
I don't think you have any idea the kind of harassment anybody in a marginalized group deals with on public social media.
> This is a terrible idea
Got a good chuckle from me.
Like this is 10000% going to happen:
someone makes an inflammatory tweet. Bunch of replies, back and forth. The original poster will get someone to say something absolutely horrible when taken out of context of the argument, hide all other replies except the horrible one and act like a victim (while continuing to post inflammatory rage bait).
Trolls spreading misinformation will use this to hide any criticism. Serial scammers will do the exact same thing.
Not one single thing about this will reduce inflammatory and combative behavior on the internet, let alone bluesky.
Think about it though: how do harassment campaigns start on twitter : do you have someone actively pushing his followers like this: 'you should reply to all his comments and spam his DMs!', or is more like someone responding strongly to your tweets, then his followers starting, w/o coordination to spam you?
Now, did I manage to change your opinion a bit?
I understood this and nowhere in my post did I say I thought they were deleted. "hiding" is barely better and the effect is essentially the same since people aren't often going to go trolling through hidden replies.
Nothing about these changes prevent or mitigate the situations you are describing.
In the first situation, I agree you can't do anything, but isn't the second one we'll mitigated? And if you don't think so, why?
All of these measures, however they are expected to work, can also be done with blocking.
The plus side is that it empowers content creators to control the conversation, which I truly believe is a good thing, however in practice I find it completely abused especially at scale by bad actors. I do truly hope they reverse course on this decision.
No message are deleted, its basically just removing the link in between two posts to limit heat in the discourse.
For me, Twitter/mastodon/BlueSky are not really discussion boards and more announcement places, so removal of causal links do not disturb me, but I guess for you it seems more discussion oriented, which I did not understand in my first message.
US free speech allows someone to protest on public property (within reason, of course). If they could only protest in their home, would that be free speech? By forcing them to "hide" the protest from public view, you've essentially removed their capability of protesting.
Social media is not public property or a public square. Social media also spans all geographies and legal speech landscapes.
All I was demonstrating is that hiding is equivalent to deletion. Claiming otherwise is disingenuous.
It's a different problem than censorship, more of a split reality issue, each person sees a different world
I wasn't clear, but to me that thing you're focusing on isn't important, the 'remove your tweet from the hidden person timeline' is.
Let's say you posted pro-Y content (I wanted to say pro-X but Elon kinda ruined X as undefined variable in public discourse :/) that a pro-Z influencer with 10M followers dislike and heavily engage on. You _will_ receive at least thousands of DMs from this guy's follower (even on non-political subjects that freaking happen btw). You would then have to change your usage of bluesky. Unless you use this new functionality on the influencer tweet. Then his followers would have trouble finding you, and unless the harassment is organized (it isn't 99% of the time imho), you will be able to continue your life as nothing happened.