Skip to main content

Posting this quote from #BlueSky developer Paul Frazee, as it is one of my favorite posts from my platform and exactly how I feel about BlueSky and Nostr too. This is not zero-sum and as I see bridges forming (now between Masto-Nostr, soon between ActivityPub and Bluesky) am excited to see the bridges start to form.

cc: @activitypubblueskybridge

#bluesky @AP-AT-Bridge Group
in reply to Tim Chambers

Tim Chambers
Tim Chambers
• •
I say that even as I am deeply unclear still on how content moderation does or will really function at scale on either Nostr, or BlueSky and am concerned on that. But the bridges to here will make it so any Mastodon content admin all still function on our side just like they do now for any Fediverse account or post.
in reply to Tim Chambers

damon
damon
• •
I’m not sure why you’re concerned about content moderation there as opposed to here when everything is manual here. Bluesky has content labels built into the platform, will offer moderation services via different providers and they use a company called Hive. I feel that’s more than what’s being done on Fedi. Nostr I completely agree with
in reply to damon

Tim Chambers
Tim Chambers
• •
@Damon I’m unclear if content on AT can be *removed*, rather than just labeled …labels that end users may or may not filter. Or if one admin can remove then can another server admin has agency to fediblock if they disagree? If gab.com adopted AT could it be mass blocked or just partially labeled or filtered?
@damon
in reply to Tim Chambers

damon
damon
• •

It’s the same on the Fedi. It takes a coordinated effort to remove content. Most content is just hidden. Every users filters will be different just like here. Illegal content won’t typically make it past the filters. If Gab was on AT then the PDS would be blacklisted by the relay and their content sent after the block wouldn’t make it through. My understanding is that users will be able to block domains.

https://blueskyweb.xyz/blog/4-13-2023-moderation


Composable Moderation

A customizable, composable approach to moderation that prioritizes safety and gives users and developers more control.
blueskyweb.xyz
in reply to damon

Tim Chambers
Tim Chambers
• •
@Damon I read this doc (maybe misread it?) as all about labeling and end user filters…not about removing content so no one regardless of filters see it.
@damon
in reply to Tim Chambers

ch0ccyra1n :she_her::neocat_floof_cute:
ch0ccyra1n :she_her::neocat_floof_cute:
• •
is preventing people from seeing things regardless of filters a good thing? I thought the point of a federated network was to enable greater user freedom and interoperability. Like, at the very least it should be possible for users to opt out of individual moderation decisions made by admins, since sometimes they're made for petty personal reasons rather than being in the interests of their users.
This entry was edited (11 months ago)
in reply to ch0ccyra1n :she_her::neocat_floof_cute:

Tim Chambers
Tim Chambers
• •
@ch0ccyra1n @Damon CSAM, spam, hate malware links,hate speech, threats, terrorist content, etc at the very least would be things as an admin I would posit need removing not just tagging….
@ch0ccyra1n :she_her::neocat_floof_cute: @damon
in reply to Tim Chambers

ch0ccyra1n :she_her::neocat_floof_cute:
ch0ccyra1n :she_her::neocat_floof_cute:
• •
@Damon my point is that oftentimes admins are little dictators and feel they should have absolute reign over their users. The fediverse implementations as they exist right now seem to reflect this idea, as they give admins total control with basically no accountability. I would prefer being able to opt-in to some things, like for example if an instance admin decides to block a transfem instance (because this keeps happening), as a user I would want to be able to bypass the admin's block without having to migrate instances which is currently a bit of a messy process. There's a friend of mine who's on an instance that blocks my instance and we're unable to interact with or follow each other because of that, and this is the exact situation that I think needs a solution, because as it stands, implementations of moderation in fediverse software make the false assumption that all admins act in good faith.
@damon
in reply to ch0ccyra1n :she_her::neocat_floof_cute:

FinchHaven
FinchHaven
• •

Trying to figure out why I keep seeing this thread when I don't follow any of the recent participants and it's not using any hashtags I Follow

Turns out that it's being boosted by "AP-AT-Bridge Group" -- which I *do* Follow

Damn Groups are spammy reply bots that saturate the Home feed of everyone who Follow them -- even when they're not participating in a particular thread, or even when a particular thread has wandered *way* off-topic

Not at all the first time this has happened, either

Solution: Unollow spammy reply-bot group @activitypubblueskybridge

ahhh...

Timeline cleanse

cc @tchambers @Damon

@Tim Chambers @AP-AT-Bridge Group @damon
This entry was edited (11 months ago)
in reply to ch0ccyra1n :she_her::neocat_floof_cute:

damon
damon
• •
@ch0ccyra1n I agree with this stance absolutely It is unfortunate. I disagree with the outsized importance of instances on the user experience. Account migration isn’t smooth enough to encourage users to continue to move if they disagree with admins. I do know Pixelfed is allowing users to unblock domains that are blocked on an instance level and Mastodon may follow that
@ch0ccyra1n :she_her::neocat_floof_cute:
in reply to damon

ch0ccyra1n :she_her::neocat_floof_cute:
ch0ccyra1n :she_her::neocat_floof_cute:
• •
I agree with you on that point on account migration. It absolutely is too messy of a process right now to be viable for most users, especially when only some software allows for migrating posts. I'm definitely excited to see Pixelfed implementing a feature like that as it takes some power away from admins. From what I've read on it, it seems to be pretty much exactly what I'd want to see.
This entry was edited (11 months ago)
in reply to ch0ccyra1n :she_her::neocat_floof_cute:

damon
damon
• •
@ch0ccyra1n Yes, illegal content. That’s due to legal liabilities. Outside of that it’s up to the user. That’s why I like what Bluesky is doing. There system is empowering the users to determine the content they want to see, as long as it’s legal
@ch0ccyra1n :she_her::neocat_floof_cute:

Lo, thar be cookies on this site to keep track of your login. By clicking 'okay', you are CONSENTING to this.

⇧