On the discourse surrounding Bluesky's starter packs:
-
On the discourse surrounding Bluesky's starter packs:
(https://bsky.app/profile/bsky.app/post/3kvu5e47w4s25 for context on starter packs)
It would be great to have something similar for the fediverse as well, but I'm not sure that putting it in Mastodon the server software would be the best approach (not even considering they dont have the capacity for it anyway). Either put it in a client or non-masto-microblogging platform, as that creates competitive advantage for that project
-
@laurenshof mix it with easy to install emoji and the default front end of Phanpy and you got yourself a good base
-
I certainly see the potential value in starter packs -- it's a great way to address the initial discoverability challenge. On the other hand I think Bluesky's non-consensual approach is badly flawed and very likely to lead to abuse -- and the abuse vectors could be even worse in a fediverse context (because followers get access to followers-only posts that others don't, and because if you've got "approve followers" on being in a popular starter pack will overwhelm your notifications)
An double-opt-in approach could involve
- an account option "add me to starter packs", off by default; turning it on is the first level of opt in.
- for individual starter packs, notification when somebody wants to add you, and you can either approve or reject. Or you could streamline by making adding a third value to the account option "always add without checking".
In any case, there also needs to be an option "remove me from this starter pack."
For an opt-out approach, the account setting would be enabled by default (but you could turn it off), and you wouldn't have the option to approve getting added to a starter pack (but you'd get notified so could remove yourself).
@[email protected] -
@[email protected] @[email protected] interesting point from Aaron Roderick (#bluesky's Trust and Safety lead) here: their protocol makes opt-out hard. https://bsky.app/profile/aaron.bsky.team/post/3kvweuh2pkg25
In general, Bluesky and ATProto based on an all-public philosophy with the assumption that no consent is needed for public stuff. So on the one hand (as long as you ignore harassment) that makes them a better fit than the fediverse for public conversations. On the other hand that makes the fediverse a better fit for anything that's not all-public. Of course Bluesky can go against this to some extent -- mutelists and DMs aren't public, reply-gating introduces consent -- but I think it's an open question as to whether they can take it as far as people want.
FYI @[email protected] @[email protected] , continuing the conversation here