Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
L. Rhodes

So let's say I'm the CCP, and I want to control what Chinese citizens can do on . I could start by configuring the national network to only allow traffic to and from PDS that connect to approved Feed Generators. I could run the BGS that crawls those PDS to exclude servers from other countries. I could run the Labelers that feed into those Generators and flag posts as "seditious" so that they get filtered. And, of course, I could investigate anyone who gets flagged by the ML software.

6 comments
L. Rhodes replied to L.

But how about a non-state actor example? Let's say I'm just a ML enthusiast and decide to run my own Labeler. Maybe I run a pretty good service, and lots of people on the network start relying on it for moderation. And maybe I'm also a big 'ol TERF, and adjust the Labeler so that accounts by people whose profiles identify them as trans get mislabeled into frequently moderated categories. AFAICT, the only safeguard against this is… marketplace dynamics.

L. Rhodes replied to L.

is pretty clear about the market-oriented direction of how they're structuring the network: blueskyweb.xyz/blog/3-30-2023- In effect, they're offloading a lot of responsibility onto "consumer choice." But these are consumer choices about services that are, to a large extent, black boxes. Unless the BGS, Labelers, App Views and Feed Gens are radically transparent about how they handle data, you have to choose based on little more than how you feel about your timeline.

L. Rhodes replied to L.

This, from "Federation Architecture Overview," is also pretty wild: "For example, the BGS might crawl to grab data such as a certain post’s likes and reposts, and the app view will output the count of those metrics."

's solution to the out-of-sync metrics people sometimes complain about on is to separately crawl for likes and reposts, and pass that info through the App View. Which seems like an opportunity to inject false metrics, particularly if anyone can run an App View.

L. Rhodes replied to L.

The post says that is experimenting with breaking Labeling and Feed Gen out from App View, so this more complicated infrastructure isn't necessarily the form the network will ultimately take. Hopefully, they'll walk back that plan, because it seems to me that the flexibility it adds mostly opens up new vectors for bad actors who want to reshape traffic on the network to their own ends.

Daniel Schildt replied to L.

@lrhodes Thank you for the deep technical overview about the current status of the system.

L. Rhodes replied to Daniel

@autiomaa You're welcome, but it's really not all that deep. I'm really just going off of the spec as written, along with a few blog posts. The only thing that makes my analysis stand out is the fact that so few of the people covering Bluesky are offering any sort of structural analysis at all.

Go Up