New Anti-Toxicity Features on Bluesky

I'm only minimally familiar with BlueSky. Is it a fair analogy, for understanding what this is, to say it's like:

- If someone replies to this HN comment I just wrote, and I don't like it, I can delete their comment (because there is an thread ownership concept on BlueSky, and the earliest comment is the owner);

- If someone links to this HN comment I just wrote, and I don't like it, I can make that hyperlink disappear, or invalidate in some way (because BlueSky is a locked API garden and hyperlinks are not plain text, but magic cloud API tokens)

Is this much correct?

UI design comment: In their first example of detachment, two ways that "Removed by author" seems ambiguous:

* which author is meant (the quoter, or the quotee)

* whether the quoted post was removed, or merely the link to it

This ambiguity not only requires learning by all users of that platform, but will also be confusing to non-users, such as when screenshotted on another venue.

>The Bluesky app won’t list all the quote post removals directly on your post, but developers with knowledge of the Bluesky API will be able to access this data.

Seems like they have some good ideas for how to deal with quote posts/tweets. But I don't understand how decisions like this are compatible with their hopes to eventually make the network decentralized. Surely you can't trust individual servers to obey this anti harassment feature? Are they no longer planning to make it decentralized?

Anyone have a good analysis on the various strategies different sites have tried over the years? Feels like it would have to include threaded versus non-threaded conversations, as well. I don't typically think of that as a way to control toxic crowds, but it does help stay aware of conversations without having to follow down rabbit holes.

just a few more years of work on the moderation features. then the site will get really good, probably

Well I was considering creating a Bluesky account, but now I definitely won't. I don't want my comments getting purged just because I argued with the author of a post.

This isn't "Anti-Toxicity" in as much it as "affirmation bubble creating". Your followers become your yes men and anyone arguing with you gets their comments purged from anyone seeing them.

> This helps you maintain control over a thread you started, ideally limiting dog-piling and other forms of harassment. On the other hand, quote posts are often used to correct misinformation too. To address this, we’re leaning into labeling services and hoping to integrate a Community Notes-like feature in the future.

I'm confused. It seems like they're acknowledging why this is a bad idea yet are proceeding with it?

If you don't want people to be able to reply critically to a post, why not have a private profile or not post it in the first place?

This is a terrible idea. They even note it by saying "we’re leaning into labeling services and hoping to integrate a Community Notes-like feature in the future".

Why push an update that is undoubtedly a net negative when the company itself suggests that it's not the best solution?

Love every program having a little police bundled in them these days

These aren't anti toxicity features. They're censorship tools.

It's quite hard to make anti-toxicity features and I'd love to see some real ones. These aren't them.

People talking about people is taboo to me. It's a very easy habbit to get into. I like seperating Ideas from People.

This is a "gotcha" mechanic, not a feed filtering mechanic.

Platforms are not only turning people thin-skinned, they're actively amplifying the desire for us to control the behaviors of others.

This is why we need true P2P social media instead of platforms or cabal-led federation.