[HN Gopher] Bluesky is receiving about 3k reports/hour
___________________________________________________________________
Bluesky is receiving about 3k reports/hour
Author : Funes-
Score : 42 points
Date : 2024-11-16 21:20 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (bsky.app)
(TXT) w3m dump (bsky.app)
| yapyap wrote:
| " Excessive moderation is a barrier to open and robust debate,
| ultimately undermining the diversity of perspectives that make
| meaningful discourse possible. Supressing dissenting opinions
| will lead to an echo chamber effect. Would you like to join me an
| upcoming campaign to restore Europe? Deus vult!"
|
| ah social media, some people are truly as dumb as rocks
| ranger_danger wrote:
| Not to mention all the people extremely confused over what
| "CSAM" is seemingly without having the ability to google it.
| OutOfHere wrote:
| Use an LLM to rapidly scale the moderation of both text and
| images (while keeping free speech in mind).
| whaaaaat wrote:
| Moderation is orthogonal to free speech. They are separate
| concerns.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| How does that make any sense? More moderation clearly means
| speech is less free, in that you are blocking some of it
| (whether for good reason or not)
| jp_nc wrote:
| I do not have a right to put signs promoting my beliefs in
| your front yard. Preventing me from doing that is not a
| prohibition of free speech. What's going to slay me is that
| the group that bitched and moaned about twitter preventing
| free speech have turned it into a hellhole nobody wants to
| be in. Now they will come over and say the same about Blue
| Sky??? Guys - you can post your ridiculous nonsense on X...
| nobody is infringing on your right to free speech.
| anon291 wrote:
| If you live in California, you have every right to say
| what you want even in privately owned spaces so long as
| they're regularly opened to the public. More states
| should be like this and enforce it
| paxys wrote:
| It isn't that clear cut. If you are trying to say something
| on a forum and a bot farm immediately gives you a thousand
| downvotes, will banning those bots increase or decrease
| free speech on that forum?
| ranger_danger wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
| jrvarela56 wrote:
| No it's not. More moderation, more false positives, less free
| speech.
|
| Just having 'moderation' means the speech is not 'free'.
| linotype wrote:
| Most people would be OK with suppressing CSAM. At least I
| hope most people are.
| erulabs wrote:
| Sure, you're not wrong, I am very okay with not seeing
| CSAM, but your argument doesn't hold water. Every
| communication is speech, and moderating it by definition
| limits it. What limits are acceptable is the question,
| and I think zero human beings truly believe the answer is
| 100% or 0%. I am a free speech maximalist, but I also
| used to work at a place that had a huge 8ft wide sombrero
| you'd wear when working with content moderation teams to
| prevent unneeded trauma to coworkers.
|
| Anyone who pretends there is a totally morally clean way
| to solve this issue is naive or a liar.
| DrillShopper wrote:
| This is what Silicon Valley does to your brain
| almatabata wrote:
| > I am very okay with not seeing CSAM, but your argument
| doesn't hold water.
|
| By this you mean that its very easy to define a clear set
| of rules for moderation?
| DrillShopper wrote:
| So if I posted your home address, social security number,
| bank account and routing numbers, your work address,
| pictures of you, your spouse, your kids, the schools they
| go to, your license plate numbers, pictures of your car and
| its real time location that moderators can't take that down
| if they believe in free speech?
|
| Interesting world we live in then.
| l33t7332273 wrote:
| Unless you're taking the stance that free speech as a concept
| applies only to the government, then it's definitely not
| orthogonal.
|
| Almost all moderation concerns are obviously restrictions on
| free speech, it's just that for several reasons people have
| started to shrink "speech" into "political speech within some
| Overton window"
|
| For some obvious examples of typical moderation that
| conflicts with pure free speech , consider amoral speech like
| abuse material, violent speech like threats, and economically
| harmful speech like fraudulent advertising or copyright
| violations.
|
| Extending these to things like hate speech, bigotry,
| pornography, etc are all moderation choices that are not
| orthogonal to free speech.
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| As a booru and ao3 enjoyer I can promise you that a tag based
| system works perfectly if posters are good about applying
| consistent agreed-upon tags and users are good about
| subscribing to tags they like and putting tags they dont like
| on their PBL.
|
| I dont think mega-big 'public square' type platforms will
| ever achieve this since growth requires chasing the most
| passive types of consumers who need everything done for them.
| pfisherman wrote:
| Why use an LLM as opposed to a more narrow purpose built model?
| LLMs are not beating smaller, purpose built models on tasks
| like POS tagging, NER, sentiment analysis, etc. And the
| inference costs scale quite poorly (unless you are self hosting
| llama or something).
| OutOfHere wrote:
| That's where "rapidly" comes in. Also, LLMs allow very high
| customization via the choice of prompt. It's a lot quicker to
| adapt the prompt than to retrain a fine-tuned model. I think
| the outputs of the stabilized LLM could later be used to
| properly fine-tune a custom model for efficient use.
|
| As for sentiment, even embeddings can do a good job at it.
| hipadev23 wrote:
| Due to how easy it is to setup accounts and post on Bluesky, it's
| likely many of the same operatives behind the propaganda and bot
| armies on Twitter are now pushing the same vitriolic content, and
| triggering these reports. If they can negatively impact Bluesky
| at a critical moment, it'll reduce the flow of users who will
| quickly surmise "oh this is just like twitter"
| ranger_danger wrote:
| How would they make it harder / reduce bots without sacrificing
| privacy (such as SMS/ID verification/etc.)?
|
| I think if you can realistically solve that you'd be a
| millionaire already.
| hipadev23 wrote:
| I don't think you realistically can. I'd instead approach it
| from limiting the reach of new accounts until proven as good
| actors.
|
| 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.
| fullstackchris wrote:
| > good actors
|
| Aha... dont be naive... 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!
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| this IMO is why groupchat is best social network. Anything
| with more than 20 people doesnt go on my phone. sorry
| marketers.
| DrillShopper wrote:
| That problem is unsolvable
| calebh wrote:
| What about using TPM modules? I've been researching these
| modules lately, primarily for use in online video games.
| From my understanding, you can use TPMs to effectively ban
| players (TPM ban) based on their hardware. This would mean
| every time an account is banned, the bad actor would have
| to switch to a different TPM. Since a TPM costs real money,
| this places a limit on the scalability of a bad actor.
| DrillShopper wrote:
| Cool, if you can require them for every possible
| interaction on a platform but even that violates privacy
| if you have one universal value that ties it all together
| (the identifier of the specific TPM).
|
| 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
| nicce wrote:
| > 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 is directly used for
| remote attestation.
|
| More here, for example : https://learn.microsoft.com/en-
| us/windows-server/identity/ad...
| nicce wrote:
| > What about using TPM modules? I've been researching
| these modules lately, primarily for use in online video
| games. From my understanding, you can use TPMs to
| effectively ban players (TPM ban) based on their
| hardware. This would mean every time an account is
| banned, the bad actor would have to switch to a different
| TPM. Since a TPM costs real money, this places a limit on
| the scalability of a bad actor.
|
| 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.
| citizenkeen wrote:
| This underestimates the effect of Bluesky's culture of "block
| and move on". There are curated block lists you can subscribe
| to. Individual communities do a pretty good job of shutting
| down toxicity they don't want to engage with.
| voat wrote:
| I'm interested to see how Bluesky ends up handling bad actors in
| the long-term. Will they have the resources to keep up? Or will
| it become polluted like the other large platforms.
|
| 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?
| paxys wrote:
| The AT Protocol already accounts for this. There will
| eventually be community-built content labelers and classifers
| that you can subscribe to to rank and moderate your own feed
| however you want.
| luckylion wrote:
| I understand the moderators working for the big social
| networks have a terrible job and often see the worst the
| internet has to offer.
|
| 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.
| dartos wrote:
| The internet has been run on volunteer moderators for a
| long long long long long time.
| bdangubic wrote:
| you really think Google/Facebook/... can't do it reliably?
| :-)
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I have a feeling that this is going to create a weird thing
| of some magnitude where accounts end up on popular blacklists
| for poor reasons and have no recourse.
|
| 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).
| shams93 wrote:
| I saw what happened on threads, essential CSA material flooding
| in, very very creepy so I stopped using threads.
| AzzyHN wrote:
| Blegh. Hopefully they're using some computer assistance, like
| PhotoDNA or Project Arachnid
| James_K wrote:
| Do they have any way to make money yet?
| jmyeet wrote:
| This is the big challenge of any platform for user-generated
| content and it's incredibly difficult to scale, do well and be
| economical. A bit like CAP, it's almost like "pick 2". You will
| have to deal with:
|
| - 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.
| egypturnash wrote:
| I wonder how they're planning to pay for people to deal with
| these reports.
| bigbones wrote:
| I think the central nature of moderation needs fixed, rather than
| moderation itself. Real world moderation doesn't work by having a
| central censor, it involves like-minded people identifying into a
| group and having their access to conversation enabled by that
| identification. When the conversation no longer suits the group,
| the person is no longer welcome. I think a technical model of
| this could be made to work.
|
| 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.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| The whole point of online discussion IMO is not to join some
| little hive mind where everyone agrees with each other (eg many
| subreddits) but rather to have discussion between people with
| different information bases and different viewpoints. That's
| why it's valuable, you learn new things and are exposed to
| different points of views.
| bigbones wrote:
| That is true regardless, for example pre-Elon Twitter was
| nothing but right wing tears, post-Elon nothing but left wing
| tears.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I suspect that when people love Bluesky so much, a lot of that is
| actually just the fact that it's free and has no ads and the
| population was quite manageable.
|
| I don't think I've seen a concrete plan for how it's going to
| keep scaling and pay the bills.
| bakugo wrote:
| The audience Bluesky is currently cultivating is the kind of
| audience that mashes the report button every time they see
| something they disagree with, so this isn't surprising.
|
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-16 23:02 UTC)