5 ms·

My interest for bluesky is practically non-existent as long as they ban people for posting commonly held views and scientific facts. I’m not going to invest in

My interest for bluesky is practically non-existent as long as they ban people for posting commonly held views and scientific facts. I’m not going to invest in a platform where fear of banning is a thing from the get go.

oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
Can you give an example? It sounds like you have something specific in mind.
- josteink 2y ago
  Things like this? https://lunduke.locals.com/post/6505039/bluesky-bans-lunduke-for-having-common-views https://lunduke.locals.com/post/6505039/bluesky-bans-lunduke... And this: https://x.com/clownworld_/status/1858194893249917377?s=46 https://x.com/clownworld_/status/1858194893249917377?s=46 And this: https://x.com/immeme0/status/1872482191869132932?s=46 https://x.com/immeme0/status/1872482191869132932?s=46 Etc. They seem REALLY ban-happy over there.
  - doshaa 2y ago
    You see it as a problem, i see it as a benefit, Main reason i dislike twitter/X is the amount of pointless grift that goes around, some for monetary reasons, Either behave like a human or leave, "I posted some dog whistle and got banned for it" is actually a great ad for Bluesky.
    - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
      I've never been able to find it again, but there was a really interesting discussion on [ATP](https://atp.fm/ https://atp.fm/) a long while back where John Siracusa was floating the idea of a 'less free' social network and I've really, really wanted one ever since. Honestly, Hacker News is pretty close to that in the sense that low-value content is unceremoniously removed, which must contribute to the overall better quality here.
      - Yizahi 2y ago
        The problem I see today, is that we, humans, can't find a balance in that for some reason. Less free basically translates to the moderated, and it is universally seen as a good mechanism in general. But today it is often either free for all lack of moderation, or a full scale ban frenzy, with zero warnings, and zero timed bans, always permanent ones. Sometimes due to the platform architecture permabans even prevent from reading posts. And out of the few places with warning systems, several have no control over report abuse. There are almost no middle ground popular platforms left.
  - minitech 2y ago
    Nothing concrete in any of those links, but they all smack of bad faith (and the middle one didn’t even depict a ban). That said, if people whose entire personality is being anti-trans perceive Bluesky as ban-happy and aren’t interested in it, I see that as a win.
    - josteink 2y ago
      > they all smack of bad faith > That said, if people whose entire personality is being anti-trans Are you talking about protecting women’s rights? That’s pro something, not anti something, right? So speaking of bad faith… The only one I see acting in bad faith here is you?
      - dettil 2y ago
        It's both. To be pro-women is to be anti-trans, and vice versa. The two stances are fundamentally incompatible.
      - minitech 2y ago
        No, I’m not talking about protecting women’s rights. I hope if you were to imagine (in good faith!) a person “whose entire personality is protecting women’s rights” and a person “whose entire personality is being anti-trans” you’d come up with different images. Btw, you’re firmly doing the bad faith thing now, and were from the very start when you danced around the truth with language like “commonly held views and scientific facts”.
  - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
    That first one looks like a first-person account, so I'm guessing is probably heavily biased; I couldn't watch the full video without creating an account, which I'm not prepared to do right now. The second is clearly an account attempting to get banned. Regardless of what you post, if you're actively trying to get banned, I don't care that much when you do. The third is probably the most concerning, although he doesn't provide any specific evidence about what he actually posted, so must be taken with a grain of salt. In general, I'm really against services banning you without clear reason or ability to challenge. See also gmail, X, amazon, etc. etc. In terms of "free speech" vs. "censorship", I'd like a healthy mix for my social media service of choice (whether that ends up being Bluesky or something else). I don't want people to be excluded simply for expressing an opinion. I do want people excluded if they are harassing others—or worse, obviously.
- tjpnz 2y ago
  They banned Laura Looner for just showing up.
  - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
    I don't know how reliable a source daily dot is, but [their report](https://www.dailydot.com/debug/bluesky-ban-laura-loomer-catturd-marjorie-taylor-greene-debunk/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/bluesky-ban-laura-loomer-catt...) says that is untrue.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - fossislife 2y ago
      That Dailydot article is from November 14 2024 and says those were fake accounts. But apparently she really did create an account, yesterday, and says to have been immediately banned, without posting anything: https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1873542021715243076 https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1873542021715243076
      - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
        I see. Having looked into this some more, I honestly think she's an outlier. I'm not familiar with her work, but she seems to make money by being banned from places, using the "most banned woman" label as a badge of honour. Still, would be interesting to get Bluesky's take on this, and some more unbiased detail from somewhere.
defrahh 2y ago
Even worse, they don't ban the users sending death threats and other threats of extreme violence - as Jesse Singal discusses in this article: https://www.thefp.com/p/jesse-singal-bluesky-has-a-death-threat-problem https://www.thefp.com/p/jesse-singal-bluesky-has-a-death-thr...

oneeyedpigeon 2y ago

Can you give an example? It sounds like you have something specific in mind.

josteink 2y ago
Things like this? https://lunduke.locals.com/post/6505039/bluesky-bans-lunduke-for-having-common-views https://lunduke.locals.com/post/6505039/bluesky-bans-lunduke... And this: https://x.com/clownworld_/status/1858194893249917377?s=46 https://x.com/clownworld_/status/1858194893249917377?s=46 And this: https://x.com/immeme0/status/1872482191869132932?s=46 https://x.com/immeme0/status/1872482191869132932?s=46 Etc. They seem REALLY ban-happy over there.
- doshaa 2y ago
  You see it as a problem, i see it as a benefit, Main reason i dislike twitter/X is the amount of pointless grift that goes around, some for monetary reasons, Either behave like a human or leave, "I posted some dog whistle and got banned for it" is actually a great ad for Bluesky.
  - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
    I've never been able to find it again, but there was a really interesting discussion on [ATP](https://atp.fm/ https://atp.fm/) a long while back where John Siracusa was floating the idea of a 'less free' social network and I've really, really wanted one ever since. Honestly, Hacker News is pretty close to that in the sense that low-value content is unceremoniously removed, which must contribute to the overall better quality here.
    - Yizahi 2y ago
      The problem I see today, is that we, humans, can't find a balance in that for some reason. Less free basically translates to the moderated, and it is universally seen as a good mechanism in general. But today it is often either free for all lack of moderation, or a full scale ban frenzy, with zero warnings, and zero timed bans, always permanent ones. Sometimes due to the platform architecture permabans even prevent from reading posts. And out of the few places with warning systems, several have no control over report abuse. There are almost no middle ground popular platforms left.
- minitech 2y ago
  Nothing concrete in any of those links, but they all smack of bad faith (and the middle one didn’t even depict a ban). That said, if people whose entire personality is being anti-trans perceive Bluesky as ban-happy and aren’t interested in it, I see that as a win.
  - josteink 2y ago
    > they all smack of bad faith > That said, if people whose entire personality is being anti-trans Are you talking about protecting women’s rights? That’s pro something, not anti something, right? So speaking of bad faith… The only one I see acting in bad faith here is you?
    - dettil 2y ago
      It's both. To be pro-women is to be anti-trans, and vice versa. The two stances are fundamentally incompatible.
    - minitech 2y ago
      No, I’m not talking about protecting women’s rights. I hope if you were to imagine (in good faith!) a person “whose entire personality is protecting women’s rights” and a person “whose entire personality is being anti-trans” you’d come up with different images. Btw, you’re firmly doing the bad faith thing now, and were from the very start when you danced around the truth with language like “commonly held views and scientific facts”.
- oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
  That first one looks like a first-person account, so I'm guessing is probably heavily biased; I couldn't watch the full video without creating an account, which I'm not prepared to do right now. The second is clearly an account attempting to get banned. Regardless of what you post, if you're actively trying to get banned, I don't care that much when you do. The third is probably the most concerning, although he doesn't provide any specific evidence about what he actually posted, so must be taken with a grain of salt. In general, I'm really against services banning you without clear reason or ability to challenge. See also gmail, X, amazon, etc. etc. In terms of "free speech" vs. "censorship", I'd like a healthy mix for my social media service of choice (whether that ends up being Bluesky or something else). I don't want people to be excluded simply for expressing an opinion. I do want people excluded if they are harassing others—or worse, obviously.
tjpnz 2y ago
They banned Laura Looner for just showing up.
- oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
  I don't know how reliable a source daily dot is, but [their report](https://www.dailydot.com/debug/bluesky-ban-laura-loomer-catturd-marjorie-taylor-greene-debunk/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/bluesky-ban-laura-loomer-catt...) says that is untrue.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - fossislife 2y ago
    That Dailydot article is from November 14 2024 and says those were fake accounts. But apparently she really did create an account, yesterday, and says to have been immediately banned, without posting anything: https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1873542021715243076 https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1873542021715243076
    - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
      I see. Having looked into this some more, I honestly think she's an outlier. I'm not familiar with her work, but she seems to make money by being banned from places, using the "most banned woman" label as a badge of honour. Still, would be interesting to get Bluesky's take on this, and some more unbiased detail from somewhere.

defrahh 2y ago

Even worse, they don't ban the users sending death threats and other threats of extreme violence - as Jesse Singal discusses in this article: https://www.thefp.com/p/jesse-singal-bluesky-has-a-death-threat-problem https://www.thefp.com/p/jesse-singal-bluesky-has-a-death-thr...