Scrutable

Huh well I suppose I'm @chrastina.net now then.

bob sterman wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2024 8:06 am Just heard someone senior from BlueSky on Radio 5 this morning.

It was hilarious. She didn't even know the supposed age requirement for her own platform. And it's a tiny company right?

And the naivety!! Putting moderation in the hands of the users spammers. :lol: :lol: :lol:

These "starter packs" and user-created feeds seem like a wonderful way to reach a desired audience :twisted:

I don't think that's strictly true - they use AI to moderate but they also offer tools to users to fine tune their own feeds. They use a third party tool for monitoring CSAM, for example (this is all available in the docs on their site).

Social media has changed a lot. Users are gravitating towards smaller audiences, not broadcasting to everyone. I don't see an issue with allowing users to curate their own feeds. You could do that with lists anyway on X?

nekomatic wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2024 1:59 pm Your chance of getting a large organisation to dick about with something as sensitive as DNS records every time someone joins or leaves the company is nil.

It's just a TXT record to be added. And it isn't for everyone on the payroll, just those with a public profile that represents the organisation and needs to be authenticated. If the new BBC North Midlands correspondent is sufficiently important to be bobnorthmids.bbc.com, someone in HR asks IT to add the relevant record. A couple per day for the Beeb, max.

nekomatic wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2024 1:59 pm There have already been several high profile accounts that turned out not to be the actual person, e.g. the recent one for Kemi Badenoch.

But that's my point. "Her" account was @kemibadenoch.bsky.social. The real Kemi can (and probably will) be @kemibadenoch.conservatives.com. Then she can grab and park the base profile (bsky.social) and after that it's no more usurpable than Twitter.

sTeamTraen wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2024 6:37 pmIt's just a TXT record to be added. And it isn't for everyone on the payroll, just those with a public profile that represents the organisation and needs to be authenticated. If the new BBC North Midlands correspondent is sufficiently important to be bobnorthmids.bbc.com, someone in HR asks IT to add the relevant record. A couple per day for the Beeb, max.

Well it’s not just me saying that, it’s people who ought to know about how IT works in large organisations.

Assuming they are who they say they are, of course.

Stephanie wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2024 2:55 pm

bob sterman wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2024 8:06 am Just heard someone senior from BlueSky on Radio 5 this morning.

It was hilarious. She didn't even know the supposed age requirement for her own platform. And it's a tiny company right?

And the naivety!! Putting moderation in the hands of the users spammers.

These "starter packs" and user-created feeds seem like a wonderful way to reach a desired audience

I don't think that's strictly true - they use AI to moderate but they also offer tools to users to fine tune their own feeds. They use a third party tool for monitoring CSAM, for example (this is all available in the docs on their site).

Social media has changed a lot. Users are gravitating towards smaller audiences, not broadcasting to everyone. I don't see an issue with allowing users to curate their own feeds. You could do that with lists anyway on X?

She explained that once you've seen something you don't like - you can tweak your users settings so you don't see that type of stuff again. Bit late when you've already just been exposed to some 8chan-worthy spam.

Another aspect to these "starter packs" that's rather amusing, and somewhat troubling, they are essentially off-the-shelf ready made echo chambers. For people who don't have the patience to let an echo chamber develop organically!

You can tweak the user settings from the start, you don't need to wait until you see something you don't like.

I'm not sure I get the issue with echo chambers myself, are we not posting on one here?

Stephanie wrote: Tue Nov 26, 2024 10:16 am You can tweak the user settings from the start, you don't need to wait until you see something you don't like.

I'm not sure I get the issue with echo chambers myself, are we not posting on one here?

Yup. And you just choose several starter packs for balance

I think the biggest thing I've learnt from Bluesky is an unofficial slogan - "Block dont engage" - which is a much healthier way of dealing with trolls and supported by the platform.

I found this really handy Chrome extension that helps you find people you followed or were followed by on Twitter, on Bluesky. It's based on display name or handle, so isn't 100% foolproof, but I did find quite a few people. It's helping me with my gradual transition fully away from twitter.

Here's the tool: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detai ... jpko?pli=1

That's handy - but definitely check - it had some interesting ones.

I've had a look at my moderation settings on bluesky (untouched since I joined) and it's pretty much hide or warn on anything bad unless I specifically toggle them to show. They've even put Rude on hide which seems to refer to rude replies "Rude or impolite, including crude language and disrespectful comments, without constructive purpose". So by default they assume you want to have a lovely experience. I'm a sicko, so will probably set mine to show rude comments etc.

Stephanie wrote: Tue Nov 26, 2024 8:06 pm I've had a look at my moderation settings on bluesky (untouched since I joined) and it's pretty much hide or warn on anything bad unless I specifically toggle them to show. They've even put Rude on hide which seems to refer to rude replies "Rude or impolite, including crude language and disrespectful comments, without constructive purpose". So by default they assume you want to have a lovely experience. I'm a sicko, so will probably set mine to show rude comments etc.

Bad news for Mr Van Nistelrooy

Joined as AlloVPsycho.
Took me about 10 shots to pass the Human Test though.
"Click all the squares with animals"? Well, Bluesky, jellyfish ARE animals!

Is No Context Brits on it? Only thing I'll miss on Twitter.

Allo V Psycho wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2024 7:21 amIs No Context Brits on it? Only thing I'll miss on Twitter.

No, there’s only an account (with misspelled handle) that calls itself ‘unofficial’ and is flagged as a content scraper.

You can find Paul Bronks and the World Bollard Association on there in the meantime though.

I joined yesterday, and within minutes I had my first follower - the (apparently) real Sir Tom Jones. WTF? I bet he does that to everybody.
Anyway, I doubt I'll do much with it.

jaap wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2024 5:37 pm I joined yesterday, and within minutes I had my first follower - the (apparently) real Sir Tom Jones. WTF? I bet he does that to everybody.
Anyway, I doubt I'll do much with it.

It's not unusual

Gfamily wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2024 6:20 pm

jaap wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2024 5:37 pm I joined yesterday, and within minutes I had my first follower - the (apparently) real Sir Tom Jones. WTF? I bet he does that to everybody.
Anyway, I doubt I'll do much with it.

It's not unusual

Golf applause

Bluesky needs to sort out its List functionality. It’s insane you can be added to a list and not remove yourself. It’s ripe for abuse.

Tristan wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2024 7:38 pm Bluesky needs to sort out its List functionality. It’s insane you can be added to a list and not remove yourself. It’s ripe for abuse.

Why should Bluesky be able to remove you from a third party's list? Why would they want to censor their users like that?

dyqik wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2024 12:58 am

Tristan wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2024 7:38 pm Bluesky needs to sort out its List functionality. It’s insane you can be added to a list and not remove yourself. It’s ripe for abuse.

Why should Bluesky be able to remove you from a third party's list? Why would they want to censor their users like that?

Let’s have someone takes a disliking to you add you to a list called “Suspected paedos” without you being able to do anything about it.

Now do you see the issue?

dyqik wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2024 12:58 am Why should Bluesky be able to remove you from a third party's list? Why would they want to censor their users like that?

I think Tristan is talking about blocklists, which you can subscribe to and which then automatically block everyone for you that the list author puts on the list. I think this is a bad idea - and haven’t yet had a problem with excessive people I want to block - so I don’t use them, but ultimately nobody has a right to an audience so if people think it’s useful I guess it’s up to them. I’m not sure how putting someone’s account on a list called ‘paedos’ is materially different from announcing on a website or in a post that ‘x is a paedo’ tbh.

Yes, exactly, if there's a list like that making libellous claims then one would expect bluesky to take it down under risk of a lawsuit, and the person who made the list potentially to be sued as well.

And yet…

Tristan wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2024 3:12 am

dyqik wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2024 12:58 am

Tristan wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2024 7:38 pm Bluesky needs to sort out its List functionality. It’s insane you can be added to a list and not remove yourself. It’s ripe for abuse.

Why should Bluesky be able to remove you from a third party's list? Why would they want to censor their users like that?

Let’s have someone takes a disliking to you add you to a list called “Suspected paedos” without you being able to do anything about it.

Now do you see the issue?

Not really, no.

No one has to sign up to use that list. It's a third party provided tool, that some people might find useful. If the list is libelous, then it's breaking Bluesky T&Cs, and the whole list should be taken down.

This doesn't need a mechanism for Bluesky to edit the third party's content.

nekomatic wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2024 7:46 am

dyqik wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2024 12:58 am Why should Bluesky be able to remove you from a third party's list? Why would they want to censor their users like that?

I think Tristan is talking about blocklists, which you can subscribe to and which then automatically block everyone for you that the list author puts on the list. I think this is a bad idea - and haven’t yet had a problem with excessive people I want to block - so I don’t use them, but ultimately nobody has a right to an audience so if people think it’s useful I guess it’s up to them. I’m not sure how putting someone’s account on a list called ‘paedos’ is materially different from announcing on a website or in a post that ‘x is a paedo’ tbh.

Yes, I know he's taking about block lists.

Block lists are third party content created by users. Bluesky has no more reason to censor them than to censor posts, or to object to content on third party websites that use the Bluesky API to provide services to users. If they don't break the T&Cs, then what are Bluesky supposed to do?

A policy of aggressively editing lists would likely place them beyond Section 230 protection, making Bluesky liable for all lists.