I am not sure if it will succeed or fail, but I am interested to see how it plays out.
I don't believe I subscribe to any blocklists on BlueSky. If I end up doing so, it is much more likely to be one run by someone I trust than by a company. Having the option of either seems worthwhile to me.
I'm not sure this follows. There is a similarity to the reddit model of moderation. The host provides some base amount of moderation but supplemental moderation comes from members of the community. In the Bluesky model, a 'subreddit' is analagous to an indexer/aggregator (aka Relay/AppView) that provides a moderated and/or weighted feed of content. The same incentives for volunteer mods on Reddit will exist for volunteer mods on Bluesky.
EU is moving towards requiring all social media obey EU laws, under loose notion that their laws is the least restrictive and most reasonable. No one is, and the sum of all ethical standards on Earth is not going to be something very popular, so that's nonsense. OTOH, it's perfectly reasonable that content served at scale in a region will have to be lawful; "this content you want removed is lawful in MY country" is sort of nonsense too. So moderation decoupling and, ahem, moderation localization is going to be necessary for social media. I suppose that's where they're going.
The problem with censorship isn't the enforcement of rules. The problem with censorship is the enforcement of rules the individual that has to enforce them doesn't agree with. Free speech absolutism on social media is often argued for with appeals to "the town square" but the difference between social media and an actual town square is that if you make a complete ass out of yourself in an actual town square, eventually someone will punch you.
Post 18th century world started with peasants beheading kings and gutting his body into pieces so no single individual shall have any meaningful parts of it. The fact that kings had the power to throw anyone out of "his" club, deemed no longer his simply by volume of peasants within, at his king's discretion without the newly established ultrabureaucratic people's approval processes, was the problem they had enough of.
I'm not even sure in which part in the history of humanity your definition of free speech and censorship problems could come from. I don't think even ancient Roman Senate honored that kind of view as I've never heard they held sessions with bags of stones around. That isn't an anarchist view either, since it will lead to their minority views alone justify such "consequences".
Just wtf?
