this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
583 points (97.9% liked)
Technology
59373 readers
8292 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Twitter didn't have block lists. You could block people individually, but not as a group.
Are these details really that important? Is it really that difficult to manually block 50-100 users? I don't know, everything you are telling me are, at best, marginal improvements that do not justify selling all your personal data to a private company seeking profit from those data/contributions.
CC @JaymesRS@literature.cafe
All I'm saying is that the moderation tools are NOT the same.
Manually blocking hundreds of people (where those people can still see your posts [how twitter does it]) instead of subscribing to one list isn't the same, and being able to remove your quoted posts from some troll is not the same.
There is an argument to be had about who funding the app and what that means, but there's no denying that Bluesky's moderation tools from the user level are streets ahead of anything twitter has ever done.
Ok, I haven't denied that, the tools are different (I don't even know Twitter's tools very well), I debate whether that is worth enough to accept that it is centralized. If over time they consider that something else is more profitable, they will change the moderation tools, have no doubt.
Coincidentally, the CEO of bluesky posted this infographic today. Maybe some of these things will not hold up in the long run, but we'll see.
https://files.mastodon.social/cache/media_attachments/files/113/478/385/983/255/387/original/47310b3e334f918c.jpeg
They have recently said that they are going to have a subscription model for some extra features to curb the need to throw in ads and whatnot. We'll definitely see how that all works. But I do feel like they might be at least trying to set up a business model that doesn't totally suck. All to be determined at this point.
Personally I think that financing a platform like this with premium subscriptions is illusory. I could be wrong but what are they going to offer as a premium?
I think it may be interesting to note that Spotify is closing its first green year in its history this year, for reference.
I think they described some basic-ish stuff you'd get if you subbed, like longer video uploads. There were a couple of perks that I don't remember off the top of my head.
And that may not be the only revenue stream in the end. They may still get financing from somewhere else, which certainly has its issues. But at least trying to figure out something while they are relatively small is probably a better approach than waiting until the walls are falling down and then scrambling.