We’re receiving about 3,000 reports/hour
bsky.app
bsky.app
ah social media, some people are truly as dumb as rocks
I have a friend who didn’t know who won the US presidential election until I told him. He just had other things going on. Part of me envies that kind of focus.
It is a complete disregard of freedom and rights that generations of people before him fought and died over so he has the luxury of ignoring elections .
A luxury he or his next generations (1) may not have in the future as a result of their attitude and indifference.
It is one thing not to be able leave the world a better place than we got it, it is something else to leave it behind worse not even due to greed but of sheer indifference.
(1) and this has nothing to do with trump directly or any hyperbole that democracy is on the line. A interested population is key to not having power concentrated in the hands of few who will exploit it inevitably.
Doesn't this suggest its populations' collective votes that matter, not individuals' efforts? It could be different if you have a sizable audience or something and can effectively influence that population, but otherwise, individual votes are irrelevant. If you're not in power, positive personal outcomes can be mutually exclusive with being hyperinformed.
Here is an excellent CGP grey video on the topic https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs
—-
> hyperinformed
Knowing the results of the four year election cycle of the most influential country is just being informed . We are not talking about every gaffe trump did or said during the run up to the election, just the results, anything below that is ignorant
CSAM is just the latest iteration of the term we use for the concept due to the euphemism treadmill.
I think it's actually a little too specific. It's trying to exclude "innocent" things like selfies or "simulated" things like drawings, but those are just as illegal in some or all countries.
Selfies shared between teenagers are innocent! When an adult enters the picture is when it becomes a problem, because yes: it’s abuse and exploitation that we’re objecting to. Unless we think morality is a question of aesthetics, then yes, this also means drawings are not in and of themselves our concern.
Why do think this is unreasonable?
How do you feel about 17 year olds collecting nudes of 14 year olds to gawk at and bully them over?
Does “17 year olds collecting nudes of 14 year olds to gawk at and bully them over” not strike you as abusive and/or exploitative? Because it certainly does to me.
I think you’ve chosen to interpret my post in an excessively literal manner (i.e only adults abuse or exploit teenagers) rather than the far more obvious alternatives I intended (e.g a 16 year old “sexting” their 17 year old partner).
Or, put another way, if I say we’re opposed to abuse and exploitation, and then you present me with a situation involving abuse and exploitation, of course I’d be opposed to it. Certainly you’re capable of figuring out this isn’t the sort of thing I was talking about.
I can't run a free speech darknet site because some glowboy will upload CP to it and then netflow dox me to put me in a federal pen if I'm not fast enough on it! The only good fix is "there are no illegal numbers."
Also, if a part of their business model will be based off selling algorithmic feeds, won't that mean more spam is actually good for their bottom line because they'll sell more algorithmic feeds that counter the spam?
Who is going to do that job as a volunteer? Or is that expected to be solved by technology? Hard to imagine them achieving what Google, Facebook etc could not reliably.
it is one thing to say they “can’t” vs. “the won’t cause they no reason to”
I'm sure Google and Facebook wouldn't pay these companies if they could achieve similar results without them.
It's something I've seen time and time again, in a wide variety of discussions forums, for decades now.
Such people will happily do it for free, and they're willing to dedicate many hours per day to it, too.
I don't understand their motivation(s), but perhaps it simply gives them a sense of power, control, or influence that they otherwise don't have in their lives outside of the Internet.
Moreover, while I hope he is compensated well enough, I imagine this was initially, if not any longer, a job that demanded effort disproportionate to the monetary reward. What would keep someone interested in such a job and naturally driven to perform it well?
Coming from a place of curiosity, meaning no offense, and happy to let this comment slip quietly away to a back room to sit alone if that's what it merits.
You aren't missing anything. Many people have oppositional defiance disorder and have never used an unmoderated forum; they are completely unusable because they're full of spam.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/oppositional-...
There could be a system whereby if you see something bad in your feed you can report it.
I’m concerned that in time it might develop into zealous communities of samethink where you have to mind any slightly dissenting opinion or you’ll get blacklisted.
I think what I’m thinking about is essentially that judges cannot be replaced by community opinion. (Not that Twitter moderation was less bad).
If you don't let people control what they encounter, whether by signing up for aggressively moderated communities or subscribing to automated curators or just manually black/white-listing as they see fit, they'll find themselves dissatisfied with all the noise and move on.
Unmoderated social media is not a solution to "zealous communities" and "samethink" -- through self-selection, it just becomes a haven for whatever zealotry or samethink happens to organically dominate it.
It seems to me that "say whatever you want and others have the ability to decide not to listen" is about as good a compromise as you can hope for.
This actually has already kind of occurred with moderation lists and the solution has generally been to strike down list managers who abuse their authority and block them (as you can't normally add someone who has blocked you to their lists).
That seems really abuseable.
yeah, this is reddit in a nutshell. Anyone that pointed out that Harris is going to lose the election because of x reasons was ridiculed. Among other things.
The DNC needs to do some serious introspection.
In a presidential year it's basically all geography and coattails from the presidential campaign. This one followed the post-inflation trend from every other country, if you need a single explanation for it.
we can talk about super delegates if we want, but this is a worlwide phenomenon and goes past advertising and faux represenation. People are frustrated and want change. Any change. They are afraid and fearful people don't make rational choices.
If I fail at my job I am fired, that is a logical outcome. Why do you feel that politicians should be treated differently?
No, it's about the same as 2019:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
Inflation is over and done with. We even fixed income inequality; it's sharply reduced since 2019:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w31010
In fact, every single economic indicator is currently better than 2019.
One thing you can say that may be true is that voters are upset because they remember inflation from 2021-22 and are still reacting to it. Or that they don't like high interest rates. And housing prices are bad in blue states and that is the local governments' fault.
But one thing we see from US voters is that R voters claim the economy is bad under a D president and immediately switch to claiming it's good under an R president. So I think you should consider those people are lying.
adding on to this, typically it takes 1-3 years for the effects of an administration to really bear fruit in the economy, either good or ill. So a common tactic from the R side the last several presidential cycles is to claim ownership of the economy handed to them by the outgoing D president, then when their policies cause some kind of problem, blame the incoming D president 4 years later.
See also: who the R's blame the deficit on vs. which party's presidents actually increased the deficit the most over the last 20-25 years.
Also, Dems do literally the exact same things.
I dont think this graph demonstrates what you think it does. Household income is up, but individual income is down, by the same source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N This would imply that income is down (especially factoring ever present inflation), but households have grown.
> Inflation is over and done with. We even fixed income inequality; it's sharply reduced since 2019:
The Unexpected Compression study is about a specific subset of wages (low), not income. These are different things, even in broad definitions. Inflation is not solved. It continues to be leveraged and has a lasting effect.
> So I think you should consider those people are lying.
I believe that they are ignorant first.
Indeed it's down a bit. The reason I didn't link it is that I think household income matters more than personal income, because it's more relevant to paying for the big expenses like the household itself, but it depends how people share expenses.
US household sizes historically never grow though: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=cWvT
And here's personal real earnings of "workers", which is up: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q
I think the flat "median personal income" has to do with the baby boomers hitting retirement age and leaving their jobs, but not really sure. It doesn't help that both median income charts end in 2023.
> These are different things, even in broad definitions.
In a high unemployment period they'd be different, but since we have historically low unemployment they're close.
I linked the paper because it goes into detail and I don't have anything else as good. For general income you can see graphs here: https://realtimeinequality.org/?id=income&incomeend=03012023...
It's okay. Very unstable around 2021, flat but better than 2019 since then. Could certainly be better.
I think it could be improved if we'd kept some of the welfare improvements from 2020 (namely child tax credit expansion), but highly engaged people got distracted advocating for student loan relief since then, and voters are never really into welfare programs even when they're the ones getting it.
> I believe that they are ignorant first.
Thus "consider" ;)
I do think people mainly answer that kind of survey based on what they hear in the news; they're not that selfish and want to seem a little savvy, so if you're asked "is the economy bad" you're going to answer with what you're hearing from everyone else even if you just went on a nice vacation.
Thank you for for the source, this helps my point perfectly. If household income is only just reaching 2019 levels, but food has gone between 100-200% up in price[0], then that means the effective buying power has been cut in half if not more (depending on the good).
> Inflation is over and done with.
No, it’s not. It returned to a more normal level, but the effects don’t just magically disappear.
> We even fixed income inequality; it's sharply reduced since 2019
Fixed is pulling a lot of weight there. The lowest 10% of earners had wages that returned to pre-pandemic levels faster than those who make more, a lot of which were solely HS grads, and have increased proportionally higher. This does not in any way mean income equality is “fixed”, it’s still obviously there. Additionally, this coincides with your first link that wages for 90% of the population aren’t what they used to be, and those within the 10th percentile are hit the hardest by food prices anyway. Also “economic indicators” don’t matter until either food prices go down or wages meet inflation. As they say, everyone anxiously hopes for bread and circuses.
> One thing you can say that may be true is that voters are upset because they remember inflation from 2021-22 and are still reacting to it. Or that they don't like high interest rates. And housing prices are bad in blue states and that is the local governments' fault.
They’re going to react to it as long as it’s still affecting them, obviously. No one likes high interest rates. And that’s part of a handful of reasons there’s been more movement out of blue states.
> But one thing we see from US voters is that R voters claim the economy is bad under a D president and immediately switch to claiming it's good under an R president. So I think you should consider those people are lying.
This is just hypocritical. So the people you disagree with are liars because they disagree with you? While you’re claiming the economy is great under a Dem, and downplaying one of the most significant bouts of inflation in living memory?
[0] - https://www.bls.gov/charts/consumer-price-index/consumer-pri...
No, the chart I linked is income after accounting for price increases. That's what "real income" means.
The other thing we can see in surveys is that people think their personal economic situation is good, but then think the economy is bad anyway. So they don't generally believe their income is down at this time, though they do remember it being down recently.
> No, it’s not. It returned to a more normal level, but the effects don’t just magically disappear.
Inflation is a rate. When the rate goes down, then it's over. ("disinflation")
When it goes negative ("deflation") it means a severe economic crisis like the one in 2008.
> They’re going to react to it as long as it’s still affecting them, obviously. No one likes high interest rates.
Luckily they've been going down all this year. I think savers like them though.
> And that’s part of a handful of reasons there’s been more movement out of blue states.
Wellllll… the US has a gigantic welfare program for homeownership called 30-year fixed mortgages. Many people bought homes in 2021 when rates were low, so it literally doesn't matter to them if it goes up after that. It does make it harder to move though, or to borrow money for other things.
The housing costs issue more affects young people who want to move out of their parents' places.
> This is just hypocritical. So the people you disagree with are liars because they disagree with you?
It's because they immediately switch. I also thought the economy was good in 2019, but it was definitely bad in 2020. (And worst of all in 2008.)
Also no, I didn't say they were liars, just that it's a possibility.
Have prices sharply reduced since 2019?
You could just declare all nominal prices 100x lower and make everyone rewrite their loan contracts, it'd make the penny useful again too, but the best approach is to just wait until expectations reset or voters find a new thing to get mad about.
(Prices can go down in some sectors, like food/oil/technology; nobody really has a good explanation for when this is safe and when it isn't.)
Also, in this case the guy who got elected was running on explicitly inflationary policy - low interest rates, tax cuts and tariffs. Though I don't think voters knew that.
Towards the end of the Plague Years, when food prices were going up 4%-5% quarter to quarter, people were most definitely complaining that the prices were rising way too fast.
Some of the prices have started to come down a bit in the past few months[ß] but for vast majority of food items, from staples to high-end ingredients, prices remain painfully high.
ß: in the UK, beef and pork are becoming marginally less expensive, possibly thanks to meat producers figuring out that a number of people are willing to try things like venison, spreading the demand across a wider range of products; this year's olive harvest has been so good the prices for olive oil are expected to come down in about another year; and butter has come down (slightly) from its peak.
The government collapsed because the party pushed by the country's most influential media company (Axel-Springer) with the expressed goal of collapsing the coalition did just that.
The fact that you try to defend those rioters by perpetuating their transparent lies says everything I need to know about you.
However, he was a second generation migrant and I suspect some anti-immigration arguments try to make the claim that subsequent generations are also an issue. To these people making the argument that he was second generation so the claims that he was first generation is misinformation would be considered splitting hairs. However, this should not be an excuse for spreading incorrect information and we should always endeavour to accurately communicate the state of the world with other people.
This leads us to some of the other misinformation claims. I've seen it claimed it was misinformation that he was a Muslim. Whether he was a Muslim or not now seems less clear because the police have subsequently revealed he was in possession of a military study of an Al-Qaeda training manual and was also in possession of ricin. Of course it is possible to have such a manual for purely academic purposes or because he wanted to carry out a terrorist style attack but he had no allegiance to Islamic terrorism. But it does lend a small amount of evidence towards him being associated with Islamic terrorism. Also, it's important to note that the people making the claim about him being a Muslim could not have known about this at the time. The strong claims that they made about his religion were certainly not supported by the evidence that they possessed. Of course they may claim they have an oracle they use which involves the behaviour of the police when describing the alleged perpetrator and that allows them to make strong inferences about the background of alleged perpetrator. But I suspect such an oracle will always be weak probabilistically and even you believe it was strong you still have a responsibility to explain that you are using such an oracle when making such claims so other people can properly weigh the evidence themselves.
This information about the training manual and the ricin was also suppressed by the police until October when it was likely to be known in early August. I also consider this a form of misinformation or lying because the police must have known how this information may slightly change how people would evaluate the situation if they were in possession of it but chose not to release it. However, the police may have strong operational reasons for not releasing such information which may have surpassed the value of acting in a truthful manner. Hopefully, there is an investigation into why such information was suppressed because it may have effected the criminal trials of some of the people involved in the riots.
Losing the Senate was expected. The House was perhaps less of a toss up than the presidential election itself, but this outcome isn't really a surprise.
It is by all conventional and accepted definitions a resounding defeat.
Yeah, aside from all that it was the “narrowest possible loss”.
Why do you think this is worth bringing up? Because it has numbers in it? I don't know what happens to the debt of a campaign after it's over, but I do know it's neither of our problems. It sounds like they've already covered it through late donations though.
Her campaign was swing state-focused and it does seem like it worked in those states (based on relative swings), but it had an unusually short length of time to run. It likely would've just worked if it was a normal length campaign, or if she'd gone on Rogan.
> Republicans are majority in every section of elected government with plans to reinforce that
More like plans to lose it. Enough cabinet members have been pulled from R House members that they're going to have a 2-3 person majority for months.
Starting a presidential year with a trifecta isn't rare, but even more common is that they lose it in the midterms. US voters have no consistent opinions, but their most consistent opinion is "thermostatic swing" - in a midterm year they always vote against whoever is president. Basically they're just haters.
> millions of Americans are becoming disillusioned with Democratic ideology
Eh. I think any theory which assumes voters are actually paying attention or have coherent ideologies is wrong. They have better things to do than that.
In particular, Trump and Obama are very similar here - they're both popular with all kinds of people, because everyone just kind of imagines he agrees with them. (Also, neither of them have successors, which the rest of their party should be worried about.)
> I think any theory which assumes voters are actually paying attention or have coherent ideologies is wrong.
Then you’d be wrong. Many voters don’t have coherent ideas on say international policy, however many have specific ideologies regarding more local, important issues, such as food accessibility, welfare, immigration status, body autonomy, etc. Perhaps not across the board, but this belief that people are gormless masses to be controlled is probably a major reason your party has been losing steam.
Obama doesn’t have a successor. Trump has Jr and JD who can and probably will run next cycle (most likely Trump funding, Jr organizing, with JD running) while Barron may in the further future. Whether these are strong enough though, time will tell.
That's the thing: no one is obligated to not create an echo chamber if they want to be in one.
As always I refer the conversion to the ssb API documentation[1] for an example of how AT could have been made.
My point is centralization casts the burdon of moderation upon the centralizers.
Are you a creator/founder?
I think if you can realistically solve that you'd be a millionaire already.
Or switch it back to invite only, as there’s a massive userbase now, and if you invite a problematic account it becomes a problem for your account too. Operate on a vouch system.
Aha... dont be naïve... what is the definition of "good" in 2024? Take the US population for example... 50% will say your intentions are "good", the other half will not!
It's just the phone number/email issue but tied to hardware. If you think these things won't leak and allow bad actors to tie your accounts across services then I have some lovely real estate in Florida you may be interested in.
It also appears that resetting a fTPM works around this since it fully resets the TPM. Even if it didn't then people buying used CPUs could find that they're banned from games that they've never even played or installed on their system before
It depends how the TPM utilization was applied in practice. The initial manufacturer key (Endorsement Key) is hardcoded and unextractable. All the long-lived keys are derived from it, and can be verified by using the public part of the EK. Usually EK (or cert created from it) is directly used for remote attestation.
More here, for example : https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/identity/ad...
It is even worse for privacy than phone number. You can never change it and you can be linked between different services, soon automatically if Google goes forward with the plans.
Please.
If I knew how to do that, or even how to reduce bots even with SMS verification etc., I'd be a multi-billionaire at least.
Making a twitter clone is relatively easy, making a community with a good vibe that's actually worth spending time using is the one single problem that makes none of the clones stand out to normal users.
But you don't know what you don't know, so I might be missing something that makes this pointless.
So you can already start by using a labeller and just hiding that content behind a warning (kind of like the NSFW wall), hiding it entirely, or just attaching a visual tag to it (based on preferences). And then to filter out more consistent perpetrators you can rely on mute/block lists.
Is it realistic? yes. Is it viable? I'm not sure. People claim to care more about privacy but will choose ads and trackers over a subscription any day of the week. Anyone operating a website or app with a subsciption knows this.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2024/01/10/it-sure-looks-like-x-twitt...
[2] https://techcrunch.com/2023/07/13/twitter-admits-to-having-a...
Everybody you're blocking is at the whims of the blocklist owner, and it didn't take long for those people to go insane and use their lists as a tool for their own personal unrelated crusades.
Bluesky is already starting to experience this from a few I saw going around
I don't think that'd solve the problem, but it would marginally help (and should be better than the status quo)
(Outside of eventual consistency, of course.)
But, it won't be "just like twitter" unless the "Discover" tab ("For You" on X) is filled the billionaire owner's non-stop hyper-partisan, political posts.
- CSAM
- Lower-degree offensive material eg Youtube had an issue a few years ago where (likely) predators were commenting timestamps on inocuous videos featuring children or on Tiktok videos with children get saved way more often. I would honestly advise any parent to never publicly post videos or photos of your children to any platform, ever.
- Compliance with regulation in different countries (eg NetzDG in Germany);
- Compliance with legal orders to take down content
- Compliance with legal orders to preserve content
- Porn, real or AI
- Weaponization of reporting systems to silence opinions. Anyone who uses Tiktok is familiar with this. Tiktok clearly will simply take down comments and videos when they receive a certain number of reports without it ever being reviewed by a human, giving you the option to appeal
- Brigading
- Cyberbullying and harassment
This is one reason why "true" federation doesn't really work. Either the content on Bluesky (or any other platform) has to go through a central review process, in which case it's not really federated, or these systems need to be duplicated across more than one node.
That said, I wonder how much these days it would take to get it working well enough using existing LLMs. I'm not sure how much you would need to do that wasn't a bit off the shelf if you were mostly trying to keep your safe harbor protections / avoid regulator scorn.
If the user base actually keeps growing at a steady rate, I don't see how they'll get the resources to deal with so many reports (especially since they don't seem to have a plan to monetize the site yet) without resorting to the usual low-effort solutions, such as using some sort of algorithm that bans automatically based on keywords or number of reports.
Or you prioritize reports from accounts with a proven track record. If I consistently report posts that clearly violate the rules why shouldn't my report count more than an account that just got created?
If you consistently report nonsense then you should accumulate negative karma until at some point you can safely ignore whatever they report in the future.
Honestly, I think something like a StackExchange lite reputation system could work well here. But as more for a credibility system than an authority one. Someone with a good reputation (by the users and the site itself) is probably making more credible reports than a newer person or a troll.
Not to mention that this won't solve the spam that actually matters. What's dropping a few thousand dollars to a dedicated attacker?
And yes, it really shouldn't go up. SomethingAwful was 10bux back in 2005, and is still 10bux in 2025 (they monetized other things over the decades, but not the entry cost).
Can it be exploited? Sure, about as much as Bluesky can add "Bluesky Gold" at any time. When it enshittifies I hope it takes a shorter time to leave than Twitter.
>inb4 someone tells me how everyone can afford $1
if you have the time to be commenting on social media, you can afford $1. The cost of electricity to run your phone for a month is probably $1.
I had to slash a bunch of my expenses this year, but any issues with social media costs would be more of a time issue for me, not a cost issue.
I don’t see the issue. Lots of things (most much more important than a bluesky account) cost money. Is having a Bluesky account like a fundamental human right or something?
Putting up a paywall hasn't deterred bots, and it won't work.
The couple times I've visited people's Bluesky profiles I've noticed they got hit with false-positive moderation actions for completely innocuous stuff, which cemented my initial impressions that the platform has fundamental problems that will probably just get worse over time.
People have this proposed solution like, "Bsky should just have a user fee"... But this just reminds me how Mastodon servers are typically run by small communities and friend groups which solicit a bit of donation here and there to keep things running. Not lining the pockets of some large/powerful central org/corp but rather keeping the money within the community. As an added bonus each community gets to set our own rules which can vary from what other servers choose, thus ensuring greater trust and agency within one's self-governed community. Adding to this, servers form "relationships"/rapport with other ethically/socially-compatible communities. When there's a moderation action that goes awry (not that I have personally even seen this happen, just giving a comparison to Bsky), you have direct communication with the person/people involved because it's literally your social circle, not some stranger who will never know/care who you are.
BTW, how to prevent spam on mastodon: block mastodon.social (the original "default server" people keep signing up to for some reason)
I don’t think I’ve seen a concrete plan for how it’s going to keep scaling and pay the bills.
I’m very skeptical but I’m rooting for success!
Looked semi-seriously at doing a Twitter clone around the time Bluesky was first announced, and to solve this I'd considered something like GitHub achievement badges (e.g. organization membership), except instead of a static number, these could be created by anyone, and trust relationships could exist between them. For example, a programming language community might have existing organs who might wish to maintain a membership badge - the community's existing CoC would necessarily confer application of this badge to a user, thus extending the existing expectation for conduct out from the community to that platform.
Since within the tech community these expectations are relatively aligned, trust relationships between different badges would be quite straightforward to imagine (e.g. Python and Rust community standards are very similar). Outside tech, similar things might be seen in certain areas of politics, religion or local cultural areas. Issues and dramatics regarding cross-community alignment would naturally be confined only to the neighbouring badges of a potential trust relationship, not the platform as a whole.
I like the idea of badge membership and badge trust being the means by which visibility on the platform could be achieved. There need not be any big centralized standards for participation, each user effectively would be allowed to pick their own poison and starting point for building out their own visibility into the universe of content. Where issues occur (abusive user carrying a highly visible badge, or maintainer of such a badge turning sour or suddenly giving up on its reputation or similar), a centralized function could still exist to step in and potentially take over at least in the interim, but the need for this (at least in theory) should be greatly diminished.
A web of trust over a potentially large number of user-governed groupings has some fun technical problems to solve, especially around making it efficient enough for interactive use. And from a usability perspective, application onboarding for a brand new account
Running on little sleep but thought it was worth trying to sketch this idea out on a relevant thread.
I don't think it has anything to do with "identification." It has to do with interest. If your groups are centered around identity then that will be prioritized over content.
Content needs little moderation. Identity needs constant moderation.
I don't think badges will work, because who assigns the badges? Friend groups IRL are generally not led by a single tyrannical leader. You just end up making a forum with a single owner.
You could also have a global member limit to encourage competition from other small sites to keep there from being big huge echo chambers.
Bluesky is currently gaining more than 1M users a day - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42159713 - Nov 2024 (154 comments)
Also recent and related:
Bluesky is currently gaining more than 1M users a day - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42159713 - Nov 2024 (153 comments)
The Bluesky Bubble: This is a relapse, not a fix - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42156907 - Nov 2024 (48 comments)
Consuming the Bluesky firehose for less than $2.50/mo - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42152362 - Nov 2024 (58 comments)
Maybe Bluesky has "won" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42150278 - Nov 2024 (743 comments)
Watch Bluesky's explosive user growth in real time - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42147497 - Nov 2024 (11 comments)
How to migrate from X to Bluesky without losing your followers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42147430 - Nov 2024 (50 comments)
1M people have joined Bluesky in the last day - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42144340 - Nov 2024 (124 comments)
Ask HN: Bluesky is #1 in the U.S. App Store. Is this a first for open source? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42129768 - Nov 2024 (44 comments)
Ask HN: Will Bluesky become more popular than Twitter? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42129171 - Nov 2024 (13 comments)
Visualizing 13M Bluesky users - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42118180 - Nov 2024 (236 comments)
Bluesky adds 700k new users in a week - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42112432 - Nov 2024 (168 comments)
How to self-host all of Bluesky except the AppView (for now) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42086596 - Nov 2024 (79 comments)
Bluesky's AT Protocol: Pros and Cons for Developers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42080326 - Nov 2024 (60 comments)
Bluesky Is Not Decentralized - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41952994 - Oct 2024 (194 comments)
Bluesky Reaches 10M Accounts - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41550053 - Sept 2024 (115 comments)
It’s a tool, it can be used for good or evil. I’ll leave the subjective analysis to others but I think tools are rare just good or bad.
Do you really think joining up with other primitive humans in a small tribe would be a negative experience on your life?
Friends and allies would be helpful.
Tribalism is an essential human social method that got humanity to this point!
Perhaps you could also force a limit on how much time was spent (or how many posts made in X time) on the site.
Additionally like how some irc networks had a philosophy of hidden ops, encouraging users to hide their elevated status leads to a more egalitarian experience. Moderators can't abuse their position as easily as on other platforms.
There are rules specific to a board and the site itself. The rules are more libertarian than other platforms but the users modify their behaviour to play within the rules as much as on other platforms.
The site proactively reports illegal things to various national law enforcement agencies. They don't wait until being asked by the police or ordered to by a judge. This fact is probably why it's still online.
Personally, I would like to see an 4chan style image board but with stricter rules of behaviour so that people are less toxic and more kind in their communications to each other.
I agree but I don't see how this is possible at any scale because any rules would be subject to interpretation by other humans.
One example that happens a lot is the "code of conduct" in FOSS projects, bad users often use it as a false flag to justify suppressing opinions they don't like, AND bad moderators (in addition to the false flag approach) abuse their colorful interpretations of subjective terms to push a narrative.
2. Personal identification data is toxic. (You really don't want to be breached)
3. It's relatively expensive to verify if users don't pay.
4. Lots of people don't have valid IDs, but you still want them as users.
I am not sure bluesky is highly dependent on users at the moment, I think they just want "real" users and not bots
Have you met.. people? They already post whatever they want with their full name with no care in the world.