4 ms·

If you can "spark outrage" with such a post, then no statement is safe. Such a post is a canary in the goldmine for censorship.

jeroenhd 2y ago
The "end wokeness" account very much thrives on outrage, lies, and misinformation. If you don't want Bluesky to hide anything for you, go to the moderation settings on your account and turn everything off. Except for illegal content like CSAM, moderation is optional; for accessing illegal content, you'll need to convince law makers to loosen up their child porn laws.
- LightHugger 2y ago
  to be fair, most major news media these days thrives on lies, outrage, and misinformation.
  - Juliate 2y ago
    Source please?
    - coldtea 2y ago
      ...the world out there
    - LightHugger 2y ago
      ... you want me to provide a singular source for decades of lying and misinformation? Honestly, eventually the media will cover something you know well very badly or even maliciously (or in my case, dozens of things), and if you aren't a fool you should extrapolate that realization to everything else they cover, even the things you don't know well. They cover it all very poorly.
      - Juliate 2y ago
        I quote you: "most major news media these days". These days, or decades? As for the quoted X/Twitter account, it's plain obvious as day it's not playing in the trustworthy source of information camp. Calling "most major news media" being misinforming is either a very bad take showing that the backstory of the team behind the media is not taken into account anymore (what is their intent, really? what's their pedigree?). Either a symptom that truth is already undistinguishable from falsehood (which is precisely the ultimate goal of such shit accounts that deserve nothing more than being shut down). And that is the concerning point. We have the same symptoms in Europe as you do in the USA. Only we have them about 5/10 years later. So we learn to look up to what's happening on your side, to detect and react faster than you did. Not sure it will be enough for us still. The disease is the same.
        LightHugger 2y ago
        They are openly caught in lies continuously and people like you deciding not to hold them accountable because "Oh there's someone worse on twitter, they're the best we have" is part of the downward spiral we are currently caught in.
        Juliate 2y ago
        > They are openly caught in lies continuously Example? Source? > and people like you deciding not to hold them accountable I'm sorry, what? :D
        saint_piglet 2y ago
        OK examples. Here's one out of thousands: During the closing days of the 2008 presidential race, Sydney Schanberg, former New York Times editor, leading Vietnam War journalist, and pulitzer prize winner, published a very lengthy, detailed, and credible piece that strongly suggested that John McCain had played a leading role in abandoning American POWs in Vietnam and hiding their existence from the American public. This story, despite being of obvious interest to the public, was uniformly ignored by every major media outlet in America, conservative and liberal alike. See also the uniform blackouts of some of the most important details surrounding many other events, such as: The USS Liberty. TWA flight 800. the hannibal directive. Bobby Kennedy's assassination. Flight MH17. The venona papers. The deaths of 6 of America's top political figures at the end of WW2 (W. Wilkie, G. Patton, H. Hopkins, H.D. White, L. Duggan, J Forrestal). Should I keep going? The point is: regardless of what you think about any of these events, it's indisputable that many of the most relevant details have been uniformly ignored by every mainstream outlet. The book "Encountering American Pravda" by Ron Unz will give you many more examples with abundant sources, if that's your thing.
- PenisBanana 2y ago
  > If you don't want Bluesky to hide anything for you, go to the moderation settings on your account and turn everything off. That is really the crux of what is going on here. This is the N-th example of someone being auto-banned from bluesky due to saying "there are only two sexes"; "excess death rates are up by 10%" or other non-permitted thoughts/speech. ... and the user only (?) has to change a moderation setting (?) and then all would (have been) well ?!
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    They weren't banned. Their post will be hidden by default behind a warning (a "click here to see" sort of thing); users who disable such hiding will just see it without clicking.
    - Kelteseth 2y ago
      And this is exactly what people mean, when they say that this account spreads misinformation.
    - mike_hearn 2y ago
      They were banned. https://bsky.app/profile/realendwokeness.bsky.social https://bsky.app/profile/realendwokeness.bsky.social "This profile has been flagged: Content Blocked. Go back." That's what you see if not logged in. There's no option to see the profile or post. Perhaps if someone logs in and changes the default it becomes visible, (or maybe not), but it's effectively banned. Another user on the thread says they posted "Woke up today blessed that Trump is my president" and five minutes later: https://bsky.app/profile/tankblades.bsky.social https://bsky.app/profile/tankblades.bsky.social "Not found. Account has been suspended." That's far more aggressive than any other website.
  - ivann 2y ago
    But this wasn't about saying "there are only two sexes".
- coldtea 2y ago
  >The "end wokeness" account very much thrives on outrage, lies, and misinformation Which is neither here, nor there. Would a similar post be allowed from another not tainted account? And who is the guardian against "outrage, lies, and misinformation"? A social media site should give you the option to follow who you want, block who you want, and that's it. Not force what's acceptable and what's not for you to see (except criminal stuff like CP). Advertisers should have absolutely no say in this, either. Even showing you a "suggested posts" feed ("the algorithm") should be optional and you should be able to turn it off.
  - Arnt 2y ago
    Strictly speaking, Bluesky doesn't force you. It does set defaults though, and we know most people aren't going to change them. I guess Mastodon is better for you. I quite like Bluesky, its defaults appear to lead to civil behaviour. Given a choice between that and the kind of behaviour endwokeness prefers, I'll take civility, no question.
    - coldtea 2y ago
      Civility is good as long is not about confining discussion around what "good people believe", that is, the mainstream moral imperatives of the day.
    - hagbard_c 2y ago
      > I guess Mastodon is better for you That fully depends on what instance the user is on, many Mastodon instances are quite happy to use the banhammer on anyone who strays from a desired narrative. You can run your own instance but will find that instance banned by those same ban-happy instances. The way many if not most instances are run unfortunately leads to a fractured universe of echo chambers. > I quite like Bluesky, its defaults appear to lead to civil behaviour. Only if by 'civil behaviour' you mean it limits dissent with the desired 'progressive' narrative. While it is quite possible to have a civil discussion on the fact that there are in fact only 2 sexes ('genders' is a term borrowed from linguistics, viz. 'gendered languages') such a discussion is not welcomed at BS nor on many Mastodon instances. I assume it is equally possible to have a civil discussion about the idea that there are 72 'genders' but such a discussion is not welcomed at most pre-X 'Twitter clones'. I don't think you'd be banned though, just lambasted and trolled. This is not based on experience since I do not have an account on any of these sites but on the idea that the pre-X crop of 'Twitter clones' was explicitly based on the premise that they did not censor or ban like Twitter did.
drivingmenuts 2y ago
Is it worth engaging with someone whose only goal is to stir shit?
- coldtea 2y ago
  Shouldn't that be up to those doing the engaging (and not to the platform)? And aren't those with controversial, or "controversial", or "non mainstream", opinions (or, in some cases, facts) routinely accused of just "wanting to stir shit" when they express them? And isn't it a moot point, when the same would happen to others genuinely writing the same things? What about people wanting to talk and argue about precisely those things?
  - Volundr 2y ago
    > Shouldn't that be up to those doing the engaging (and not to the platform)? It is. As mentioned in the thread your replying to users are able to change whatever moderation settings they want. They can even subscribe to 3rd party moderators of they want.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    If you want to fraternize with the creative geniuses behind "Michelle Obama penis theory" you're welcome to go use 4chan instead. Sounds like exactly the sort of place you'd love.
    - coldtea 2y ago
      If you want to censor online platforms' discourse, or to apply censoring defaults to what users see, you're welcome to go to North Korea. Sounds like exactly the sort of place you'd love. See how cheap and easy ad hominems are?
hunta2097 2y ago
If BlueSky want to be the Yin to Twitter's Yang i'd be okay with that.

jeroenhd 2y ago

The "end wokeness" account very much thrives on outrage, lies, and misinformation. If you don't want Bluesky to hide anything for you, go to the moderation settings on your account and turn everything off. Except for illegal content like CSAM, moderation is optional; for accessing illegal content, you'll need to convince law makers to loosen up their child porn laws.

LightHugger 2y ago
to be fair, most major news media these days thrives on lies, outrage, and misinformation.
- Juliate 2y ago
  Source please?
  - coldtea 2y ago
    ...the world out there
  - LightHugger 2y ago
    ... you want me to provide a singular source for decades of lying and misinformation? Honestly, eventually the media will cover something you know well very badly or even maliciously (or in my case, dozens of things), and if you aren't a fool you should extrapolate that realization to everything else they cover, even the things you don't know well. They cover it all very poorly.
    - Juliate 2y ago
      I quote you: "most major news media these days". These days, or decades? As for the quoted X/Twitter account, it's plain obvious as day it's not playing in the trustworthy source of information camp. Calling "most major news media" being misinforming is either a very bad take showing that the backstory of the team behind the media is not taken into account anymore (what is their intent, really? what's their pedigree?). Either a symptom that truth is already undistinguishable from falsehood (which is precisely the ultimate goal of such shit accounts that deserve nothing more than being shut down). And that is the concerning point. We have the same symptoms in Europe as you do in the USA. Only we have them about 5/10 years later. So we learn to look up to what's happening on your side, to detect and react faster than you did. Not sure it will be enough for us still. The disease is the same.
      - LightHugger 2y ago
        They are openly caught in lies continuously and people like you deciding not to hold them accountable because "Oh there's someone worse on twitter, they're the best we have" is part of the downward spiral we are currently caught in.
        Juliate 2y ago
        > They are openly caught in lies continuously Example? Source? > and people like you deciding not to hold them accountable I'm sorry, what? :D
        saint_piglet 2y ago
        OK examples. Here's one out of thousands: During the closing days of the 2008 presidential race, Sydney Schanberg, former New York Times editor, leading Vietnam War journalist, and pulitzer prize winner, published a very lengthy, detailed, and credible piece that strongly suggested that John McCain had played a leading role in abandoning American POWs in Vietnam and hiding their existence from the American public. This story, despite being of obvious interest to the public, was uniformly ignored by every major media outlet in America, conservative and liberal alike. See also the uniform blackouts of some of the most important details surrounding many other events, such as: The USS Liberty. TWA flight 800. the hannibal directive. Bobby Kennedy's assassination. Flight MH17. The venona papers. The deaths of 6 of America's top political figures at the end of WW2 (W. Wilkie, G. Patton, H. Hopkins, H.D. White, L. Duggan, J Forrestal). Should I keep going? The point is: regardless of what you think about any of these events, it's indisputable that many of the most relevant details have been uniformly ignored by every mainstream outlet. The book "Encountering American Pravda" by Ron Unz will give you many more examples with abundant sources, if that's your thing.
PenisBanana 2y ago
> If you don't want Bluesky to hide anything for you, go to the moderation settings on your account and turn everything off. That is really the crux of what is going on here. This is the N-th example of someone being auto-banned from bluesky due to saying "there are only two sexes"; "excess death rates are up by 10%" or other non-permitted thoughts/speech. ... and the user only (?) has to change a moderation setting (?) and then all would (have been) well ?!
- rsynnott 2y ago
  They weren't banned. Their post will be hidden by default behind a warning (a "click here to see" sort of thing); users who disable such hiding will just see it without clicking.
  - Kelteseth 2y ago
    And this is exactly what people mean, when they say that this account spreads misinformation.
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    They were banned. https://bsky.app/profile/realendwokeness.bsky.social https://bsky.app/profile/realendwokeness.bsky.social "This profile has been flagged: Content Blocked. Go back." That's what you see if not logged in. There's no option to see the profile or post. Perhaps if someone logs in and changes the default it becomes visible, (or maybe not), but it's effectively banned. Another user on the thread says they posted "Woke up today blessed that Trump is my president" and five minutes later: https://bsky.app/profile/tankblades.bsky.social https://bsky.app/profile/tankblades.bsky.social "Not found. Account has been suspended." That's far more aggressive than any other website.
- ivann 2y ago
  But this wasn't about saying "there are only two sexes".
coldtea 2y ago
>The "end wokeness" account very much thrives on outrage, lies, and misinformation Which is neither here, nor there. Would a similar post be allowed from another not tainted account? And who is the guardian against "outrage, lies, and misinformation"? A social media site should give you the option to follow who you want, block who you want, and that's it. Not force what's acceptable and what's not for you to see (except criminal stuff like CP). Advertisers should have absolutely no say in this, either. Even showing you a "suggested posts" feed ("the algorithm") should be optional and you should be able to turn it off.
- Arnt 2y ago
  Strictly speaking, Bluesky doesn't force you. It does set defaults though, and we know most people aren't going to change them. I guess Mastodon is better for you. I quite like Bluesky, its defaults appear to lead to civil behaviour. Given a choice between that and the kind of behaviour endwokeness prefers, I'll take civility, no question.
  - coldtea 2y ago
    Civility is good as long is not about confining discussion around what "good people believe", that is, the mainstream moral imperatives of the day.
  - hagbard_c 2y ago
    > I guess Mastodon is better for you That fully depends on what instance the user is on, many Mastodon instances are quite happy to use the banhammer on anyone who strays from a desired narrative. You can run your own instance but will find that instance banned by those same ban-happy instances. The way many if not most instances are run unfortunately leads to a fractured universe of echo chambers. > I quite like Bluesky, its defaults appear to lead to civil behaviour. Only if by 'civil behaviour' you mean it limits dissent with the desired 'progressive' narrative. While it is quite possible to have a civil discussion on the fact that there are in fact only 2 sexes ('genders' is a term borrowed from linguistics, viz. 'gendered languages') such a discussion is not welcomed at BS nor on many Mastodon instances. I assume it is equally possible to have a civil discussion about the idea that there are 72 'genders' but such a discussion is not welcomed at most pre-X 'Twitter clones'. I don't think you'd be banned though, just lambasted and trolled. This is not based on experience since I do not have an account on any of these sites but on the idea that the pre-X crop of 'Twitter clones' was explicitly based on the premise that they did not censor or ban like Twitter did.

drivingmenuts 2y ago

Is it worth engaging with someone whose only goal is to stir shit?

coldtea 2y ago
Shouldn't that be up to those doing the engaging (and not to the platform)? And aren't those with controversial, or "controversial", or "non mainstream", opinions (or, in some cases, facts) routinely accused of just "wanting to stir shit" when they express them? And isn't it a moot point, when the same would happen to others genuinely writing the same things? What about people wanting to talk and argue about precisely those things?
- Volundr 2y ago
  > Shouldn't that be up to those doing the engaging (and not to the platform)? It is. As mentioned in the thread your replying to users are able to change whatever moderation settings they want. They can even subscribe to 3rd party moderators of they want.
- talldayo 2y ago
  If you want to fraternize with the creative geniuses behind "Michelle Obama penis theory" you're welcome to go use 4chan instead. Sounds like exactly the sort of place you'd love.
  - coldtea 2y ago
    If you want to censor online platforms' discourse, or to apply censoring defaults to what users see, you're welcome to go to North Korea. Sounds like exactly the sort of place you'd love. See how cheap and easy ad hominems are?

hunta2097 2y ago

If BlueSky want to be the Yin to Twitter's Yang i'd be okay with that.