Listen, Bluesky fails in moderation and when it happens, you're 100% silenced.

[osma@mas.to]

Listen, Bluesky fails in moderation and when it happens, you're 100% silenced. But Mastodon teams regularly fail in moderation too, and some of them have influence which spreads through the fedi. Not sure it's much better.
https://aftermath.site/bluesky-charlie-kirk-dead-rest-in-piss

[luca@sironi.tk]

@osma In my humble opinion, it's impossible to have a perfect moderation, one that got all my nuances, for free, on a millions user social network.
You can have that, just on decentralized social networks, if you own the instance, or the pds.
Or if you are a journalist and it's owned by your newspaper.

Then you're responsible for what you say, and for what your readers understand.

[osma@mas.to]

No, you can't. If you own the server/instance/pds you're less likely to be completely thrown out, but no less likely to be silenced (by intent or error) with practically no recourse. Federation/decentralization just changes the management of moderation.

Responsibility over what you say bears little relation to moderation actions taken by unrelated third parties.
@luca

[luca@sironi.tk]

@osma

the point, for me, is that by using bluesky or blacksky , or mastodon.social , to some extent you are exchanging timeline discoverability with mass moderation.

If you own the server, nobody can tell you what to write.
Of course, if those servers label/silence your content, less people will read you, but that to me is more fair.

You can't have the cake and eat it

I think I'm a relatively decent person, I can behave properly without a third part