Jack's "solution" to Nazis using SM to do mob violence against their targets is "algorithm choice" which is intentionally anti-social & favors proliferation & stochastic terrorism.
I don't think that solves for the problem of Jack using Bluesky to amass users & give platforms like Gab & Parler & Twitter access to those users for radicalization by fascists. The "algorithm choice" model is structured to allow this, in my opinion.
@toxtethogrady Designing a personal algorithm so you don't see stuff you don't like.
Obviously that does nothing to stop the proliferation of Nazi rhetoric that stigmatizes & drives hatred against women, POC, LGBTQ people, Jewish people, etc. and online radicalization campaigns & threats to other users. In fact, it will allow them to recruit more efficiently, with less pushback.
@chargrille We all kind of do that anyway by using "block" lists and "mute" buttons. I remember running into adversaries on Twitter who proudly announced to me and their compatriots that they were blocking me. Once they did that they ceased to exist, and I could taunt them behind their back (and their friends who hadn't blocked me could see that). I always referred to them as having run off screaming into the night because they couldn't handle the truth...
But I digress. I come from the old MSNBC boards, where there were no rules in that knife fight and there were no moderators, so any old extreme posting was okey-dokey. Eventually, MSNBC got rid of those old message boards, and you can probably understand why - it all got out of control...
Jack's approach is a much more extreme version than individual use of mute & block, because it makes types of content invisible [like "hate speech"] rather than making ALL the user's speech invisible. So individual users lose the incentive not to engage in hate speech. AND it allows users who are open to not blocking hate speech to be invisibly radicalized.
The Fediverse method of dealing with it is much better (see Escaping Tech piece) because it's community based.
"As violence unfolded at the Capitol on Jan. 6, Jack Dorsey, who was then the chief executive of Twitter, overruled Trust and Safety’s recommendation that Mr. Trump’s account should be banned because of several tweets, including one that attacked Vice President Mike Pence. He was given a 12-hour timeout instead"
-Yoel Roth, former head of Trust & Safety at Twitter (including during the Jan 6 Republican coup)
#BlueSky is a Dorsey project & he owns (controlling?) shares
@toolbear@chargrille If Dorsey were intellectually honest about not restricting anyone, including Richard Spencer, from using his platform, then he would also make it impossible for Spencer to mute his critics. This played to my great advantage against all manner of Trumpsters on Twitter, until Elon Musk started banning their critics. That proved that Musk is intellectually dishonest...
@toxtethogrady
I think I get what you're saying. I reject free speech absolutism. I agree that they're hypocrites. I don't think criticizing Dorsey (and Musk) for not actually being free speech absolutists is an effective way to work against them.
@chargrille I'll be interested to see if rahaeli's prediction of Bluesky imploding in 3-6 months holds true. But given how long she's done content moderation T&S, and knows firsthand what happens when it is neglected, I wouldn't bet against it.
@chargrille I think the main problem with getting involved in a Dorsey venture is he is a lunatic liable to screw it up hugely just as he screwed up Twitter hugely.
Yes, I agree. At base my position isn't any more complicated than that. Except I would add that his ideological priors mean that what we might call a "screwup" (enabling authoritarians & fascists), he would see as a goal.
The thing that makes me sooooooooooo depressed is that I strongly suspect that none of these facts/considerations are likely to change the mind of a single person who's on Bluesky or thinking about joining it.
I'm at a loss to know what matters to people outside of user experience that would possibly lead them to take a longer term outlook.
If you've insights, they are officially solicited.
@chargrille i know from friends who have tried coming here during this migration cycles that they arrive to see posts from people explaining "what not to bring with you from twitter" and various ground rules that long time Mastodon users champion, and they see the warnings posted about various servers people should defederate, and that makes them feel like this won't be a place where their weird, defamiliarizing, negative posts will be allowed to flourish, and so stop trying after a few days.
@chargrille also like, most people I talk to say they want quote retweets but its not happening because one of the maintainers got dunked on badly on Twitter back when (apparently), and that kind of stuff adds up to a not very inviting place, a sort of country club vibe, where they club's members are sure that their way is the correct way and if you don't like it you can join a server that is unanimously blocked.
I also would like QTs and searchability, though I also get the reasons they were consciously omitted and I think it's respectful practice to get to know the place you move to before you leap in to change it around. There are workarounds. Have you tried elk.fedified? The QT feature is thoughtfully designed & does an automatic screenshot with alt text, which is awesome.
Yes, I experienced that unwelcome feeling too. I took a break and came back. I've done that many times because I think speaking the truth is important. I think that as more people have joined, the policing has subsided. As someone used to being constantly attacked on Twitter from all sides, I'm a little confused why it's troublesome to people who've been on Twitter for any amount of time, though. Twitter is far more hostile. But I know the fediverse phenomenon you are talking about.
@chargrille i think some new arrivals perceive the way things are done here as proliferating passive aggression and thus directing social discontent toward the kind of hostility familiar to them from their professional environments, whereas twitter is a place of confrontation, where a transmasc Palestinian in Jenin can ratio an Israeli settler from Brooklyn, so twitter at least appears to afford people greater discursive freedom than they have in their immediate social environments, and Mastodon appears to demand people uphold something like workplace codes of conduct.
@chargrille "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." -Albert Einstein.
How can anyone fed up with #twitter join #bluesky without stopping to ask how submitting to the control of one deranged oligarch over another is an improvement.
@Karoli I've seen that asserted here and there, but it's not sourced. And Graber actually gave exactly the opposite answer to the press:
Q: "Dorsey is on your board & helped dream this all up...has there been a change with his involvement in Bluesky? Graber: Nope."
But, the real issue is that Dorsey owns it (prob at least 1/3 share, maybe more) & will get control & profits. Press has not answered any of this or given Bluesky real critical scrutiny.
@sp Dorsey is not Bluesky. He is a major investor and on the board, but the team including the female CEO, have a lot of independence from him. One should be wary, but for different reasons. See my post: https://keywords.oxus.net/archives/2023/05/13/on-beyond-twitter
@chargrille@kerim@sp Bluesky is Dorsey's brainchild and he's clearly stated his vision and technical goals, which the platform is pursuing.
Regardless of technicalities, Bluesky would not be funded if not for Dorsey's participation in first, promoting the idea, and now actively promoting the platform and his plans for it to integrate seamlessly with Twitter (and yes, other platforms, theoretically).
I can't take anyone seriously who isn't highly critical of Jack, who wanted Musk for Twitter.
@kerim@chargrille@sp The fundamental point is many of do not trust Bluesky precisely because of Jack's still ongoing involvement and stated goals for the platform, which are proceeding as he's described.
His financial stake is irrelevant to this specific point and conversation.
100%. It's a self-defeating move if you want American democracy to survive. It's a serious mistake and it seems like people are engaging there out of very short term motivations.
The other thing I've been trying to focus attention on, is that Jack's "solution" to abusers in social media - "algorithmic choice" - is intentionally anti-social & inherently biased towards increasing hate speech &stochastic terrorism.
Add comment