[Zetice]

I'm not sure what to make of this actual submission;

> A problem with the system of having a domain as a username is that people can claim it who don’t have access to that username.

That was a bug, and is not generally speaking, the case. You must have the ability to alter the DNS records for the domain you wish to claim.

> However, that means interactions, such as user likes, blocks, follows, etc are all public. With no means to make them private. Which could lead to harassment!

It could also lead to the enlightenment of man, if we're just making random claims without explaining ourselves...

> But runs into the problem of algorithms being hijacked to show inappropriate/offensive/bigoted content.

Posts on the AT Proto can be labeled by whatever labeling service you prefer, including Bluesky itself. You can then use your preferred labeling to filter out labels you don't want, or subscribe to a feed that does that for you.

> But also it’s a group of overly complicated specifications that could’ve just been extensions to the ActivityPub protocol rather than a whole new protocol!

I don't think, "AT Proto is too complex, use ActivityPub instead" is a reasonable claim at all. The problem is a complex one, and AT Proto in particular is not even out yet.

Honestly, I can barely understand this "article". It's just a bunch of oversimplified (and sometimes outright wrong) statements about what AT Proto is, coupled with painfully misunderstood declarations that border on the illegible.

[MuteXR]

Blocks being public in ActivityPub is already a problem. Bad instances run bots dedicated to finding out if someone blocked someone on the server and making public posts calling for harassment of them.

[Zetice]

Can you link to more info about this?

[captn3m0]

I’m curious how ATProto codifies these algorithms? Is it just left to the clients to implement on the firehouse?

[Zetice]

https://atproto.com/guides/overview#algorithmic-choice

[nathancahill]

Curious if it was (partially) written using ChatGPT. It definitely has that tone.

[julietteeb]

Author here, I don’t use ChatGPT to write any of my posts.

[Zetice]

I give you this feedback with respect and to help you become a better writer, because I believe you are capable of substantially more:

This was not a high quality piece of writing. It doesn’t appear as if you spent any time at all learning about the topic, and you did not express yourself well, even when trying to articulate your ignorant points.

If English is not your first language, I totally understand and applaud the effort to learn a second language, but if English is your first language, this is the work product of a child.

You need to put more effort into two main areas to improve your writing: research and structure. I cannot overstate how poorly constructed this post is, and how thoroughly it undermines your effort to make an argument.

You can learn to improve! It’s a skill, like anything else, and your natural curiosity is what drove you this far, but you will need to work at writing if you want to get better at it.

[sweetjuly]

I give you this feedback with respect and to help you become a better internet commenter, because I believe you are capable of substantially more:

This is an incredibly rude and insulting way to give feedback. There is no reading of this that's kind or charitable, don't tell people their work is the "product of a child" and how you "can't overstate how poorly constructed [their] post is".

But, thankfully, you can learn to improve! Try to avoid insulting the author and their work. Instead, just try to offer actionable suggestions on how to improve.

[Zetice]

Let’s hope they’re better at taking feedback than you are on their behalf.

[julietteeb]

Hi! Yeah I agree that it could’ve been better. Thank you for your feedback, I’m going to try to improve on my writing. And yes, I’m a teenager, so I’m not insulted by that. Thank you for the feedback, I’m going to work on getting better at writing. Thanks for reading and your feedback helps a lot!

[Zetice]

No prob, the fact that you’re into these kinds of things already puts you ahead of the pack.

[nathancahill]

Thanks.