A Friday blog post details the Bluesky team's moderation proposals for “a shared public commons,” using things like lists, hashtags, and even “per-thread” tools that would give moderation power to each poster. The latter treats threads like a mini-forum: if you don’t like a reply, you can yeet that skeet (or just hide it). The post acknowledges why this might be problematic: Along with algorithms, hands-off moderation fits right into Jack Dorsey’s original concept for decentralized social media.

A Friday blog post details the Bluesky team’s moderation proposals for “a shared public commons,” using things like lists, hashtags, and even “per-thread” tools that would give moderation power to each poster. The latter treats threads like a mini-forum: if you don’t like a reply, you can yeet that skeet (or just hide it). The post acknowledges why this might be problematic: Along with algorithms, hands-off moderation fits right into Jack Dorsey’s original concept for decentralized social media.

  •  brndnpink   ( @brndnpink@beehaw.org ) English
    5•1 year ago

    I find the “digital commons” and the “online town square” metaphors to be poor ones when thinking about moderation on social networks. It’s shoehorning analog concepts onto digital information transmission systems. The two are not the same. Harassment and misinformation spread happen very differently digitally than they do in the analog world. “Digital commons” metaphors are prominent amongst “free speech” hardliners like Dorsey and Musk who simply don’t want to go through the hassle of developing, funding, and creating policy for online speech moderation. Anyone who uses phrases like digital commons loses a fair amount credibility in my eyes.