[SamoyedFurFluff]

I think I can have lively, intellectually stimulating exposure without say, someone advocating for the mass killing of gay people. Or engaging in an interesting political discussion without bad-faith conspiracy theorists shitting up the place. For example, the “chiller” which as far as I know is just designed to cool down a hot button discussion actually sounds super amazing for this purpose.

One of the things that frustrated me about browsing twitter now is the constant bad faith discussions about everything, one-off potshots that waste pixels and lead nowhere. A moderation tool that sifts that and just gets me to the people that actually know wtf they’re talking about and are engaging honestly would benefit me greatly!

[apollo_mojave]

Definitely -- but the problem isn't really "content" moderation. What it seems like you actually want is personality / tone / user moderation -- which Bluesky isn't really doing.

To analogize to real life, I have friends with whom I agree 100% on politics, but I never talk to them about it, because they're annoying when they do it. But I also have friends who disagree with me on political and other issues, but we have wonderful conversations because of the manner in which we disagree.

I don't what Bluesky is doing will actually help with this problem. For one thing, I think it's design as a "feed" basically precludes any solid sort of discussion (compared to an Internet forum). The medium kind of encourages the "one-off potshots" you mentioned, and moderation won't do much to cure it.

I could be wrong though!

[BryantD]

Composable moderation means we’re not limited to what Bluesky does, however. If I want to set up a moderation server that does tone moderation, there’s nothing stopping me from doing that.

I tend to agree about the utility of Bluesky as a medium for discussion, but that’s not what I want to use it for, so that’s fine by me.

[pjc50]

> isn't really "content" moderation. What it seems like you actually want is personality / tone / user moderation

As McLuhan didn't say, the content is the message. That is, all those things arrive at you via "content", which is where the moderation lies.

[apollo_mojave]

All respect to McLuhan, there are obvious and meaningful differences between a message and its delivery!

[kortilla]

In modern US political discourse, there is no nuance in “us vs them”. Your moderators that are meant to just tag “advocating for the mass killing of gay people” will also put a “here’s why I think you should vote for Trump” post in the same category.

[SamoyedFurFluff]

I strongly disagree with this position and I believe that such a rhetoric-focused moderation tool as the chiller examples in the article will assist in my desire for intellectual discussion without dealing with inflamed nonsense.

That being said, if this affects one political group more heavy-handedly than another because their political strategy is more inflamed, I’m willing to hear less from them or only hear from the members who can communicate in a sensible manner.

[_heimdall]

Any moderated system depends on trust that moderators will act fairly. If moderators begin categorizing content into labels that they don't belong in, presumably either the moderator would be removed or the service will slowly devolve and go away.