5 ms·

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%

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
  > he is accused of targeted harassment yeah but that's an accusation without basis in reality.
  - felixgallo 1y ago
    oh, there's tons of basis in reality. How could you even say that? Just a cursory google: https://www.professorwatchlist.org/ https://www.professorwatchlist.org/ https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-makes-false-accusations-about-exonerated-central-park-five-defendant-and https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-makes... https://www.azregents.edu/news-releases/abor-chair-statement https://www.azregents.edu/news-releases/abor-chair-statement
    - wnoise 1y ago
      That's for Charlie Kirk et al, not Jesse Singal.
monocularvision 1y ago
Even better: the only “evidence” of Singal’s “anti-trans” views are that his work has been quoted by anti-trans politicians and activists. This is an absolute ridiculous bar to have. Anyone who follows him would be hard-pressed to describe him as “anti-trans” unless you think anything less than a full throated endorsement of self ID and medical transition interventions for minors is “anti-trans”.
- whistlestop 1y ago
  Indeed, Singal is a journalist you go to when you want to read a thoughtful, data-driven analysis of a controversial issue. He's exceptionally skilled at taking complex and highly polarized topics and picking them apart in a way that invites readers to consider different perspectives. Unfortunately, that in itself is a polarizing approach, as many people just want their pre-existing beliefs reinforced.
  - lkey 1y ago
    Speaking of confirmation bias, do you disagree with Singal about anything in particular? What about agreement? Who else have you read on this 'controversial issue'? Why did you consider them less persuasive than a journalist with no particular expertise? Why have you not named what the 'issue' is? Are 'people' an 'issue' to be solved in general, or just in this case? If we changed topics to 'what should be done about the "autism issue"', does your opinion change? If so, why? There are perfectly valid questions being brought up by heterodox thinkers all the time. We're not even certain that those people experience emotions, there's literally no way to tell, and we shouldn't shy away from hard questions and even harder truths, don't you think? Do you believe that the executive branch of the federal government is best-suited to dealing with undesirable minorities generally? If so, what national-level 'solutions' currently being discussed in the halls of power are your favorites? In the spirit of cooperation, I'll go first. Openly trial-ballooning the revocation of the second amendment for trans people is my favorite in terms of pure audacity.
    - whistlestop 1y ago
snapetom 1y ago
There was an article about this issue on techcrunch yesterday, and it linked to a long discussion on Bluesky about whether "clanker" was a slur that should be banned. JC. What a waste of time by some people.
lawlessone 1y ago
>if applied to everyone, would lean to a ban of probably 85% I'm not American but looking in from the outside i can't figure out anything 85% of you would agree on there right now.
- jerrya 1y ago
  Dolly Parton!
- o11c 1y ago
  "People who disagree with me should not be allowed to speak" is definitely up there.
  - DaSHacka 1y ago
    Even that only applies to one side of the political aisle
    - o11c 1y ago
      It really really doesn't. If you pay attention, $yourside does it just as much as - possibly even more than - $otherside. As evidence, consider the fact that from your comment, I literally have absolutely no idea which political side you are on.
LexiMax 1y ago
The _actual_ trouble with Bluesky is that it's just a retread of Twitter with only a few minor tweaks, right down to the inevitable moderation and governance problems from shoving every user into a single shared social space and having a single centralized point of failure. It's not 2012 anymore, and the modern mainstream social media ecosystem has turned into an utter disaster area. If you're going to do social media in the 2020's, you need something better, not the same tired ideas and empty promises about "We'll do it _right_ this time around, honest." Mastodon, for all its faults, at the very least was truly and demonstrably decentralized.
lkey 1y ago
Facebook and Twitter no longer bother with moderation, do you think the experience on those platforms is better or worse than 5 years ago? It used to be common sense to immediately ban creeps of all stripes, especially the obvious ones. Singal certainly qualifies. Putting aside the super annoying 'just asking questions' vitriol that he publishes to national papers, his pdf-file chat log stuff alone would warrant an instant perma from me without a second thought. Speaking to your broader point about the 'death' of a platform. The people that made bsky what it is now (good and ill) are precisely the people you are blaming for its downfall, which is weird. Normally when you run a business you want your users to remain so that you might profit. Relatedly, I'm very very tired of the 4chan/crypto/ai gas-leak that has enshittified everything, aren't you? I've seen bsky users chat casually about their rpe and death-threat ratio before and after leaving twitter, and for that alone, I would choose the 'threat lite' platform for as long as it remained so. > "The question is not whether those views are right, it's whether those are mainstream." I don't agree that this is the question, nor do I agree with the your unsupported number. This isn't an election, and popularism is a coward's appeal. Was the Gaza genocide not a genocide until the polls caught up with what we could all see was happening? I don't even think you believe what your wrote. If the 'views' in question are truly shared by 85%!* of a population that never agrees on anything, then surely there's no problem with sharing them on this forum? A guarantee of 85% positive karma is awaiting you if you just speak your truth. It's the Trump era, and you can say the 'r-word' and the 't-slur' now. What was actually holding you back?
- dlivingston 1y ago
  > This isn't an election, and popularism is a coward's appeal. These platforms were supposed to be the "digital town square". Implicit in that is the idea that anyone and everyone can discuss and share their ideas. When would you remove someone from an actual town square? Only when they are being extremely disruptive or violent. Further, it cannot be a "town square" if half the town isn't allowed to be there.
  - lkey 1y ago
    "digital town square" These are privately owned for-profit hundred-billion+ dollar publicly traded advertising companies. These are, almost definitionally, not honest actors! Are you serious, you still believe their marketing copy from 8 years ago verbatim? What am I witnessing here?
Sohcahtoa82 1y ago
> Bluesky has a problem of its user base demanding purity, and it will 100% be the death of it. Yup. As someone who describes themselves as Leftist, I wanted to enjoy Blue Sky, but the purity tests are insane. To give a concrete example, I was called a Nazi for owning a Tesla Model 3. The fact that I bought the car 6 years ago, long before Elon Musk made his hard-right turn, was irrelevant. They literally expected me to sell the car and take a huge financial loss (Since I need a car and would then need to buy a new one, and the trade-in value of my M3P is shit) just to virtue signal.
- bigstrat2003 1y ago
  Not to mention that it's unreasonable to levy that accusation even to someone who buys a Tesla today. Doing business with someone does not construe agreement with everything that person does. And while it's everyone's right to decide that they, personally, don't wish to buy a Tesla on the basis of Elon's beliefs, it's nobody's right to demand that everyone else must do so or else they're a Nazi.

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
> he is accused of targeted harassment yeah but that's an accusation without basis in reality.
- felixgallo 1y ago
  oh, there's tons of basis in reality. How could you even say that? Just a cursory google: https://www.professorwatchlist.org/ https://www.professorwatchlist.org/ https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-makes-false-accusations-about-exonerated-central-park-five-defendant-and https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-makes... https://www.azregents.edu/news-releases/abor-chair-statement https://www.azregents.edu/news-releases/abor-chair-statement
  - wnoise 1y ago
    That's for Charlie Kirk et al, not Jesse Singal.

monocularvision 1y ago

Even better: the only “evidence” of Singal’s “anti-trans” views are that his work has been quoted by anti-trans politicians and activists. This is an absolute ridiculous bar to have. Anyone who follows him would be hard-pressed to describe him as “anti-trans” unless you think anything less than a full throated endorsement of self ID and medical transition interventions for minors is “anti-trans”.

whistlestop 1y ago
Indeed, Singal is a journalist you go to when you want to read a thoughtful, data-driven analysis of a controversial issue. He's exceptionally skilled at taking complex and highly polarized topics and picking them apart in a way that invites readers to consider different perspectives. Unfortunately, that in itself is a polarizing approach, as many people just want their pre-existing beliefs reinforced.
- lkey 1y ago
  Speaking of confirmation bias, do you disagree with Singal about anything in particular? What about agreement? Who else have you read on this 'controversial issue'? Why did you consider them less persuasive than a journalist with no particular expertise? Why have you not named what the 'issue' is? Are 'people' an 'issue' to be solved in general, or just in this case? If we changed topics to 'what should be done about the "autism issue"', does your opinion change? If so, why? There are perfectly valid questions being brought up by heterodox thinkers all the time. We're not even certain that those people experience emotions, there's literally no way to tell, and we shouldn't shy away from hard questions and even harder truths, don't you think? Do you believe that the executive branch of the federal government is best-suited to dealing with undesirable minorities generally? If so, what national-level 'solutions' currently being discussed in the halls of power are your favorites? In the spirit of cooperation, I'll go first. Openly trial-ballooning the revocation of the second amendment for trans people is my favorite in terms of pure audacity.
  - whistlestop 1y ago

snapetom 1y ago

There was an article about this issue on techcrunch yesterday, and it linked to a long discussion on Bluesky about whether "clanker" was a slur that should be banned. JC. What a waste of time by some people.

lawlessone 1y ago

>if applied to everyone, would lean to a ban of probably 85% I'm not American but looking in from the outside i can't figure out anything 85% of you would agree on there right now.

jerrya 1y ago
Dolly Parton!
o11c 1y ago
"People who disagree with me should not be allowed to speak" is definitely up there.
- DaSHacka 1y ago
  Even that only applies to one side of the political aisle
  - o11c 1y ago
    It really really doesn't. If you pay attention, $yourside does it just as much as - possibly even more than - $otherside. As evidence, consider the fact that from your comment, I literally have absolutely no idea which political side you are on.

LexiMax 1y ago

The _actual_ trouble with Bluesky is that it's just a retread of Twitter with only a few minor tweaks, right down to the inevitable moderation and governance problems from shoving every user into a single shared social space and having a single centralized point of failure. It's not 2012 anymore, and the modern mainstream social media ecosystem has turned into an utter disaster area. If you're going to do social media in the 2020's, you need something better, not the same tired ideas and empty promises about "We'll do it _right_ this time around, honest." Mastodon, for all its faults, at the very least was truly and demonstrably decentralized.

lkey 1y ago

Facebook and Twitter no longer bother with moderation, do you think the experience on those platforms is better or worse than 5 years ago? It used to be common sense to immediately ban creeps of all stripes, especially the obvious ones. Singal certainly qualifies. Putting aside the super annoying 'just asking questions' vitriol that he publishes to national papers, his pdf-file chat log stuff alone would warrant an instant perma from me without a second thought. Speaking to your broader point about the 'death' of a platform. The people that made bsky what it is now (good and ill) are precisely the people you are blaming for its downfall, which is weird. Normally when you run a business you want your users to remain so that you might profit. Relatedly, I'm very very tired of the 4chan/crypto/ai gas-leak that has enshittified everything, aren't you? I've seen bsky users chat casually about their rpe and death-threat ratio before and after leaving twitter, and for that alone, I would choose the 'threat lite' platform for as long as it remained so. > "The question is not whether those views are right, it's whether those are mainstream." I don't agree that this is the question, nor do I agree with the your unsupported number. This isn't an election, and popularism is a coward's appeal. Was the Gaza genocide not a genocide until the polls caught up with what we could all see was happening? I don't even think you believe what your wrote. If the 'views' in question are truly shared by 85%!* of a population that never agrees on anything, then surely there's no problem with sharing them on this forum? A guarantee of 85% positive karma is awaiting you if you just speak your truth. It's the Trump era, and you can say the 'r-word' and the 't-slur' now. What was actually holding you back?

dlivingston 1y ago
> This isn't an election, and popularism is a coward's appeal. These platforms were supposed to be the "digital town square". Implicit in that is the idea that anyone and everyone can discuss and share their ideas. When would you remove someone from an actual town square? Only when they are being extremely disruptive or violent. Further, it cannot be a "town square" if half the town isn't allowed to be there.
- lkey 1y ago
  "digital town square" These are privately owned for-profit hundred-billion+ dollar publicly traded advertising companies. These are, almost definitionally, not honest actors! Are you serious, you still believe their marketing copy from 8 years ago verbatim? What am I witnessing here?

Sohcahtoa82 1y ago

> Bluesky has a problem of its user base demanding purity, and it will 100% be the death of it. Yup. As someone who describes themselves as Leftist, I wanted to enjoy Blue Sky, but the purity tests are insane. To give a concrete example, I was called a Nazi for owning a Tesla Model 3. The fact that I bought the car 6 years ago, long before Elon Musk made his hard-right turn, was irrelevant. They literally expected me to sell the car and take a huge financial loss (Since I need a car and would then need to buy a new one, and the trade-in value of my M3P is shit) just to virtue signal.

bigstrat2003 1y ago
Not to mention that it's unreasonable to levy that accusation even to someone who buys a Tesla today. Doing business with someone does not construe agreement with everything that person does. And while it's everyone's right to decide that they, personally, don't wish to buy a Tesla on the basis of Elon's beliefs, it's nobody's right to demand that everyone else must do so or else they're a Nazi.