43 ms·

> However, as time has gone by, Bluesky’s traffic has declined (X’s has as well) and some of its users have become increasingly upset at its moderation decision

> However, as time has gone by, Bluesky’s traffic has declined (X’s has as well) and some of its users have become increasingly upset at its moderation decisions, including allowing U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance and anti-trans writer Jesse Singal to remain as users of the platform. The problem, if you can call it that, is Singal hasn't broken any of their TOS or guidelines. Right now, AFAICT this is a people with pitchforks problem, who are asking for something which they don't have any business asking. Sure, if you want to stick your fingers in your ears, block Singal. There are widely used block lists for people who even merely follow Singal. Asking for his ban from a public use platform is too much without more than "He wrote some articles for the NY Times, The Atlantic, and NY Magazine, I didn't personally enjoy."

chimeracoder 1y ago
> The problem, if you can call it that, is Singal hasn't broken any of their TOS. Well, no, he did unambiguously break the TOS back when he originally joined. Then Bluesky amended their TOS, which gave them an avenue to avoid banning him.
- mustache_kimono 1y ago
  > Well, no, he did clearly break the TOS back when he originally joined. Care to explain? The links in the article re: potential violations are mostly BS.
  - chimeracoder 1y ago
    Doxxing people off-platform used to be against the ToS. When people began reporting him for that, Bluesky amended their ToS.
    - jrflowers 1y ago
      Yeah they changed the policy on off-site behavior to specifically allow his posts. For another example he routinely posted screenshots of posts from people that had blocked him. Block evasion is/was against the ToS as applied to most users other than Jesse Singal. People mix up “users wanting him banned for having abhorrent views” (which is the opinion of some people) with “users wanting him banned for the same stuff they see other people get banned for”. It serves as a kind of cover because even when you point to a concrete example of him violating the rules the moderation team will dismiss your report as being personally motivated. It’s a funny defense, “This guy couldn’t possibly be breaking the rules and be near-universally considered an asshole by the users on this site! It has to be one or the other!”
      - like_any_other 1y ago
        > he routinely posted screenshots of posts from people that had blocked him I don't like platforms that try to keep me ignorant of what others are publicly saying, keeping me in a non-consensual information bubble. It is basically deception.
        jrflowers 1y ago
        > I don't like platforms that try to keep me ignorant of what others are publicly saying That’s neither here nor there. The nuclear block is a big part of how Bluesky works, and abiding by it/was part of the rules for users other than Jesse Singal. The point I made is that other users that share your disagreement with the nuclear block would get suspended or banned for evading it, whereas Jesse Singal would not/does not. The message to other users was “if you don’t like it, tough” I say is/was because I don’t read his posts. I stopped paying close attention to all that some time after it became clear that retroactive changes to the ToS to justify (lack of) actions is the baseline for how Jay and Aaron run the site.
        amiga386 1y ago
        > The nuclear block is a big part of how Bluesky works I don't use Bluesky, but it sounds insane. It sounds like the bank robber who openly robbed a bank, made no attempt to disguise himself, and when questioned by the police, said he didn't understand because he'd rubbed lemon juice on his face so the cameras couldn't see him. He was so certain that would work. Or when the idiot Boris Johnson said to national newspapers that he'd negotiate with the EU by promising them something, but he'd get the drop on dirty Brussels and he'd stick up for the plucky UK by undermining that agreement later (playing to his safe space / audience of Daily Telegraph readers)... and then he'd turn up at the negotiating table and the EU say to him "er, you know we can read your newspapers, right?" Having some site rule about how person X can't seen person Y's posts is a trifling irrelevance if person X is a public figure and there's a legitimate journalistic interest in what person Y is saying about person X, in public. Here are some of the things I understand Bluesky users have said: * "i think if we all tried hard enough we could get Jesse Singal to kill himself, but that's just me" * "me and my friends would beat Jesse Singal to death with hammers i can tell you that much" * "I think Jesse Singal should be beat to death in the streets" * "Jesse singal get fucked and die stupid kiddy fucker piece of shit trash sub human bitch. Fuck I hope someone breaks every bone in your body and castrated you penis and balls then beat you to death stupid bitch." * "Jesse Singal has said many times he enjoys getting punched in the face. I am in no way endorsing or inciting violence. I am simply asking the question why not punch Jesse Singal in the face as hard as you can? It's not wrong to ask questions after all." Now, firstly do you think Bluesky users should be posting these messages at all? But if you do, do you think Bluesky should do its utmost to make sure the target of these threats never gets to see them, and should sanction him if any concerned citizens pass on these messages to him and he acknowledges on Twitter that he has seen them?
    - mustache_kimono 1y ago
      > Doxxing people off-platform used to be against the ToS. When people began reporting him for that, Bluesky amended their ToS. Even by the loosest definition what Singal did was not doxxing? For instance, Alejandra Caraballo, like it or not, is a public figure. A role, I would add, that she has chosen for herself. She testifies before Congress FFS. When she says something in public, including on Bluesky, I'm not sure she deserves some radical right to not have it heard anywhere else. No matter what vague term you can point to in the Bluesky guidelines or TOS.
      - whistlestop 1y ago
        Also Caraballo was the one who was actually harassing and doxxing. Singal was just reporting on it, as any journalist might do.
- ajs1998 1y ago
  My understanding is their TOS was unclear and they clarified it after the outrage, but their moderation policy didn't actually change. They're not going ban people that break the TOS outside the S, because that's practically unenforceable.
  - chimeracoder 1y ago
    > They're not going ban people that break the TOS outside the S, because that's practically unenforceable. Before they amended the ToS, they did do that. It's completely possible to enforce, especially when the person in question is the one sharing the evidence of the offending behavior. There's no dispute of facts at play.
huhkerrf 1y ago
It's worse than that, as the linked TC article links to an explanation of his ban-worthy views that, if applied to everyone, would lean to a ban of probably 85% of the US. (Purposefully not referencing them here. The question is not whether those views are right, it's whether those are mainstream.) Bluesky has a problem of its user base demanding purity, and it will 100% be the death of it.
- isodev 1y ago
  > would lean to a ban of probably 85% of the US A decentralized system would allow for that to happen tbh. That 85% can exist in their bubble but other actors who see them as dangerous and unsafe should have the means to mute/disconnect.
  - mjmas 1y ago
    Wouldn't the remaining 15% be the section in a bubble?
    - isodev 1y ago
      Could you rephrase that please, I’m not sure what you mean
      - mjmas 1y ago
        Wouldn't the remaining 15% be the portion of the populace that is in a bubble, rather than the 85%?
- a_shovel 1y ago
  You'll need to explain this a little bit more, because the TC article seems to indicate the issue is that he is accused of targeted harassment. I doubt you could design a poll to make people vote 85% in favor of targeted harassment.
  - subsistence234 1y ago
greekrich92 1y ago
[flagged]
- pluc 1y ago
  [flagged]
greekrich92 1y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- whistlestop 1y ago
  Why do you believe that description applies to Singal? His work is well-researched, grounded and reasonable. Perhaps his journalistic output conflicts with your beliefs, but that's no reason to cast false aspersions on him.
  - like_any_other 1y ago
    > Why do you believe that description applies to Singal? His work is well-researched, grounded and reasonable. To answer your question: because truth is no defense. How many times have you seen some statement accused of being something-ist, instead of simply false? How often did in further arguing the factuality of the original statement not even come up?
  - chimeracoder 1y ago
    > Why do you believe that description applies to Singal? His work is well-researched, grounded and reasonable. Perhaps his journalistic output conflicts with your beliefs, but that's no reason to cast false aspersions on him. Singal's work is not well-researched or reasonable. There have been countless analyses documenting the factual inaccuracies in his work, not to mention the routine and egregious violations of journalistic ethics. Nobody has cast false aspersions on him, least of all the person that you are responding to. On the contrary, your comments on this post suggest to me that your defense of Signal and your description of him as "grounded and reasonable" has more to do with your approval of his beliefs rather than an honest assessment of his work.
    - LexiMax 1y ago
      Could you link to some of those analyses? I'm sure that Hacker News would love to delve into the arguments instead of trying to downvote or flag your posts into non-visibility because they disagree with you.
Palomides 1y ago
"he didn't technically break any rules so I won't ban him" has been the death of _many_ social spaces good moderation requires discretion and keeping the users happy, not slavish legalism
- tptacek 1y ago
  That's an argument that proves a lot, given that it kind of implies that a quorum of customers can simply vote other customers off the island.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - Palomides 1y ago
    well... yes? does that not happen regularly on many platforms? even on a free service, users have some tiny leverage; they can vote with their feet
    - tptacek 1y ago
      Not on any viable investor-funded ones, nope.
      - Palomides 1y ago
        even billion dollar corporations like cloudflare (with a "free speech absolutist" CEO) absolutely do drop unpopular customers due to user pressure
        jazzyjackson 1y ago
        If you're talking about moot and kiwifarms that wasn't merely "user pressure" like large customers threatening to walk - it was a harassment campaign hitting up the legal department and cloudflare decided they didn't want to bother dying on that hill
skybrian 1y ago
There seem to be a lot of people on Bluesky who don’t think it’s wrong to post reply-spam about their favorite grievances even when it’s entirely off topic. Complaining about Singal is an example. It’s the sort of thing that would be downvoted to oblivion on Hacker News. For the most part they’re fairly easy to avoid, but reading the replies for popular accounts is a minefield. This is sort of like email in the old days before the spam filters got good. Bluesky needs better reply-spam filters. Or maybe they already exist somewhere, but it needs better ways to find the good filters? If that gets fixed then maybe it has a chance to become a more welcoming place.

chimeracoder 1y ago

> The problem, if you can call it that, is Singal hasn't broken any of their TOS. Well, no, he did unambiguously break the TOS back when he originally joined. Then Bluesky amended their TOS, which gave them an avenue to avoid banning him.

mustache_kimono 1y ago
> Well, no, he did clearly break the TOS back when he originally joined. Care to explain? The links in the article re: potential violations are mostly BS.
- chimeracoder 1y ago
  Doxxing people off-platform used to be against the ToS. When people began reporting him for that, Bluesky amended their ToS.
  - jrflowers 1y ago
    Yeah they changed the policy on off-site behavior to specifically allow his posts. For another example he routinely posted screenshots of posts from people that had blocked him. Block evasion is/was against the ToS as applied to most users other than Jesse Singal. People mix up “users wanting him banned for having abhorrent views” (which is the opinion of some people) with “users wanting him banned for the same stuff they see other people get banned for”. It serves as a kind of cover because even when you point to a concrete example of him violating the rules the moderation team will dismiss your report as being personally motivated. It’s a funny defense, “This guy couldn’t possibly be breaking the rules and be near-universally considered an asshole by the users on this site! It has to be one or the other!”
    - like_any_other 1y ago
      > he routinely posted screenshots of posts from people that had blocked him I don't like platforms that try to keep me ignorant of what others are publicly saying, keeping me in a non-consensual information bubble. It is basically deception.
      - jrflowers 1y ago
        > I don't like platforms that try to keep me ignorant of what others are publicly saying That’s neither here nor there. The nuclear block is a big part of how Bluesky works, and abiding by it/was part of the rules for users other than Jesse Singal. The point I made is that other users that share your disagreement with the nuclear block would get suspended or banned for evading it, whereas Jesse Singal would not/does not. The message to other users was “if you don’t like it, tough” I say is/was because I don’t read his posts. I stopped paying close attention to all that some time after it became clear that retroactive changes to the ToS to justify (lack of) actions is the baseline for how Jay and Aaron run the site.
        amiga386 1y ago
        > The nuclear block is a big part of how Bluesky works I don't use Bluesky, but it sounds insane. It sounds like the bank robber who openly robbed a bank, made no attempt to disguise himself, and when questioned by the police, said he didn't understand because he'd rubbed lemon juice on his face so the cameras couldn't see him. He was so certain that would work. Or when the idiot Boris Johnson said to national newspapers that he'd negotiate with the EU by promising them something, but he'd get the drop on dirty Brussels and he'd stick up for the plucky UK by undermining that agreement later (playing to his safe space / audience of Daily Telegraph readers)... and then he'd turn up at the negotiating table and the EU say to him "er, you know we can read your newspapers, right?" Having some site rule about how person X can't seen person Y's posts is a trifling irrelevance if person X is a public figure and there's a legitimate journalistic interest in what person Y is saying about person X, in public. Here are some of the things I understand Bluesky users have said: * "i think if we all tried hard enough we could get Jesse Singal to kill himself, but that's just me" * "me and my friends would beat Jesse Singal to death with hammers i can tell you that much" * "I think Jesse Singal should be beat to death in the streets" * "Jesse singal get fucked and die stupid kiddy fucker piece of shit trash sub human bitch. Fuck I hope someone breaks every bone in your body and castrated you penis and balls then beat you to death stupid bitch." * "Jesse Singal has said many times he enjoys getting punched in the face. I am in no way endorsing or inciting violence. I am simply asking the question why not punch Jesse Singal in the face as hard as you can? It's not wrong to ask questions after all." Now, firstly do you think Bluesky users should be posting these messages at all? But if you do, do you think Bluesky should do its utmost to make sure the target of these threats never gets to see them, and should sanction him if any concerned citizens pass on these messages to him and he acknowledges on Twitter that he has seen them?
  - mustache_kimono 1y ago
    > Doxxing people off-platform used to be against the ToS. When people began reporting him for that, Bluesky amended their ToS. Even by the loosest definition what Singal did was not doxxing? For instance, Alejandra Caraballo, like it or not, is a public figure. A role, I would add, that she has chosen for herself. She testifies before Congress FFS. When she says something in public, including on Bluesky, I'm not sure she deserves some radical right to not have it heard anywhere else. No matter what vague term you can point to in the Bluesky guidelines or TOS.
    - whistlestop 1y ago
      Also Caraballo was the one who was actually harassing and doxxing. Singal was just reporting on it, as any journalist might do.
ajs1998 1y ago
My understanding is their TOS was unclear and they clarified it after the outrage, but their moderation policy didn't actually change. They're not going ban people that break the TOS outside the S, because that's practically unenforceable.
- chimeracoder 1y ago
  > They're not going ban people that break the TOS outside the S, because that's practically unenforceable. Before they amended the ToS, they did do that. It's completely possible to enforce, especially when the person in question is the one sharing the evidence of the offending behavior. There's no dispute of facts at play.

huhkerrf 1y ago

It's worse than that, as the linked TC article links to an explanation of his ban-worthy views that, if applied to everyone, would lean to a ban of probably 85% of the US. (Purposefully not referencing them here. The question is not whether those views are right, it's whether those are mainstream.) Bluesky has a problem of its user base demanding purity, and it will 100% be the death of it.

isodev 1y ago
> would lean to a ban of probably 85% of the US A decentralized system would allow for that to happen tbh. That 85% can exist in their bubble but other actors who see them as dangerous and unsafe should have the means to mute/disconnect.
- mjmas 1y ago
  Wouldn't the remaining 15% be the section in a bubble?
  - isodev 1y ago
    Could you rephrase that please, I’m not sure what you mean
    - mjmas 1y ago
      Wouldn't the remaining 15% be the portion of the populace that is in a bubble, rather than the 85%?
a_shovel 1y ago
You'll need to explain this a little bit more, because the TC article seems to indicate the issue is that he is accused of targeted harassment. I doubt you could design a poll to make people vote 85% in favor of targeted harassment.
- subsistence234 1y ago

greekrich92 1y ago

[flagged]

pluc 1y ago
[flagged]

greekrich92 1y ago

[flagged]

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
whistlestop 1y ago
Why do you believe that description applies to Singal? His work is well-researched, grounded and reasonable. Perhaps his journalistic output conflicts with your beliefs, but that's no reason to cast false aspersions on him.
- like_any_other 1y ago
  > Why do you believe that description applies to Singal? His work is well-researched, grounded and reasonable. To answer your question: because truth is no defense. How many times have you seen some statement accused of being something-ist, instead of simply false? How often did in further arguing the factuality of the original statement not even come up?
- chimeracoder 1y ago
  > Why do you believe that description applies to Singal? His work is well-researched, grounded and reasonable. Perhaps his journalistic output conflicts with your beliefs, but that's no reason to cast false aspersions on him. Singal's work is not well-researched or reasonable. There have been countless analyses documenting the factual inaccuracies in his work, not to mention the routine and egregious violations of journalistic ethics. Nobody has cast false aspersions on him, least of all the person that you are responding to. On the contrary, your comments on this post suggest to me that your defense of Signal and your description of him as "grounded and reasonable" has more to do with your approval of his beliefs rather than an honest assessment of his work.
  - LexiMax 1y ago
    Could you link to some of those analyses? I'm sure that Hacker News would love to delve into the arguments instead of trying to downvote or flag your posts into non-visibility because they disagree with you.

Palomides 1y ago

"he didn't technically break any rules so I won't ban him" has been the death of _many_ social spaces good moderation requires discretion and keeping the users happy, not slavish legalism

tptacek 1y ago
That's an argument that proves a lot, given that it kind of implies that a quorum of customers can simply vote other customers off the island.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- Palomides 1y ago
  well... yes? does that not happen regularly on many platforms? even on a free service, users have some tiny leverage; they can vote with their feet
  - tptacek 1y ago
    Not on any viable investor-funded ones, nope.
    - Palomides 1y ago
      even billion dollar corporations like cloudflare (with a "free speech absolutist" CEO) absolutely do drop unpopular customers due to user pressure
      - jazzyjackson 1y ago
        If you're talking about moot and kiwifarms that wasn't merely "user pressure" like large customers threatening to walk - it was a harassment campaign hitting up the legal department and cloudflare decided they didn't want to bother dying on that hill

skybrian 1y ago

There seem to be a lot of people on Bluesky who don’t think it’s wrong to post reply-spam about their favorite grievances even when it’s entirely off topic. Complaining about Singal is an example. It’s the sort of thing that would be downvoted to oblivion on Hacker News. For the most part they’re fairly easy to avoid, but reading the replies for popular accounts is a minefield. This is sort of like email in the old days before the spam filters got good. Bluesky needs better reply-spam filters. Or maybe they already exist somewhere, but it needs better ways to find the good filters? If that gets fixed then maybe it has a chance to become a more welcoming place.