I’m still not sure what I think of this to be honest, but I appreciate some more detail on how this is designed to operate on the frontend and the backend, e.g.
In the AT Protocol network, various services, such as the PDS, Relay, and AppView, have ultimate discretion over what content they carry, though it’s not the most straightforward avenue for content moderation. Services that are closer to users, such as the client and labelers, are designed to be more actively involved in community and content moderation.
[…]
Infrastructure providers such as Relays play a different role in the network, and are designed to be a common service provider that serves many kinds of applications. Relays perform simple data aggregation, and as the network grows, may eventually come to serve a wide range of social apps, each with their own unique communities and social norms. Consequently, Relays focus on combating network abuse and mitigating infrastructure-level harms, rather than making granular content moderation decisions.
(Emphasis mine.)
fubarx@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
Haven’t gone through the whole spec, but based on interviews with the CEO, the main advantages are the ability for users to move easily from one node to another without losing anything, and better moderation tools.
Since at the moment there’s only one BSKY server out there, it’ll be hard to verify the first claim.
On the content moderation part, Mike Masnick of TechDirt who is deep into the moderation weeds made it sound like their system is pretty well thought out.
But ultimately, adoption will come down to the community and where they land.