top 85 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 148 points 10 months ago (11 children)

Publicly available police reports.

I'm completely against doxxing. But there were public reports. That's censorship.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (10 children)

    That’s also what many other social media would do because it’s easier to ban posting of personal information regardless of where it came from because you can’t trust moderation you outsourced to some third world country to do proper checks.

    Example:

    Reddit is quite open and pro-free speech, but it is not okay to post someone's personal information or post links to personal information. This includes links to public Facebook pages and screenshots of Facebook pages with the names still legible.

    Posting someone's personal information will get you banned. When posting screenshots, be sure to edit out any personally identifiable information to avoid running afoul of this rule.

    https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043066452-Is-posting-someone-s-private-or-personal-information-okay

    Dunno if Bsky has something similar but it’s more of a cost optimisation than anything so people are getting pointlessly angry at individual companies rather than the system which has this sort of behaviour as a guaranteed outcome.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    can always come up with rationalizations but the fact remains there are other platforms that will not "cost optimize" it away.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

    Those platforms are irrelevant. Yes, I realise I’m using an irrelevant platform but being relevant is something I actively avoid in social networks.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago* (3 children)

    A competent programmer could write an algorithm to knock out the low hanging fruit, like public Facebook pages, in about five minutes.

    Might take me a couple hours. Someone genuinely good and familiar with the space would have been done in less time than it took to write this comment.

    Can't imagine why they would do that, or why they would want to extend protections they politically must extend to marginalized people who take real precautions to assholes who know they'll always be protected by power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    They don’t want to deal with the slightest risk of dealing with legal consequences. The ole corpo risk matrix + risk appetite as assessed by lawyers resulted in this, no IT involved ever probably.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Totally, corporations will always go fasch, not just because they want to¹ but because it's what they are

    But

    can't trust moderation

    There is low hanging fruit that can be procedurally verified.

    They chose this, obviously, clearly

    ¹they always want to

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago

    Your solution doesn’t fully eliminate risk on it’s own and addressing that costs money - that’s about as far as a rational company has to go. They know going nuclear and banning all personal info means not having to deal with it at all and it’s a niche thing that will affect negligible amount of users. Bean counting is the core of meeting regulatory and legal requirements in case of for-profit organisations.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)

    That doesn't change the aspect of it being censorship. It just means that a risk adverse company is risk adverse to the degree that they will employ censorship to maintain that aversion to risk. At the end of the day, it's censorship. The rationale for why they've employed it is notwithstanding.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

    Censorship can be good and ban on personal information sharing prevents witch hunts. Reddit banned it only after it resulted in dead people which is too late in my book.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Sunil_Tripathi

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    Your example is people randomly sharing information. That is not the same as a Government entity after following the process outlined in the law, releasing information related to that Government action. We know who is awarded contracts, we know where tax payer money is going to, and so on because of disclosure requirements by Government entities.

    When an elected entity has acted in a manner accordance to law, that action ought to reasonably disclose the subject of that action. That's not to say 100% it always must be this way, but this is why we allow the public to comment on changes to those disclosure requirements.

    I would like for you to understand, there's a very fundamental difference between "random people" and "people via a method given power to rule over other people." That fundamental difference between the two is key to the point here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    Ban on sharing of personal information in social media isn't intended to stop witch hunts against innocent people, it's intended to stop witch hunts, period. I'm certain you'd speak different if the roles were reversed and I imagine that won't take long because most politicians treat judiciary as one of the spoils these days.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 38 points 10 months ago (29 children)

    shouldn't really surprise anyone. Didn't their CEO like several months ago pretty much defend a known fascist/tranphob on the platform and essentially told people who complained about it to "not post" out of protest? Also Bluesky is extremely quick to bend to the whims of whatever government body makes demands. They were one of the first sites to quickly implement age verification in the UK I believe.

  • source
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 10 months ago (28 children)

    Also Bluesky is extremely quick to bend to the whims of whatever government body makes demands. They were one of the first sites to quickly implement age verification in the UK I believe.

    LOL what did you expect them to do, exactly? They can either comply with the law or be fined to death. Those are their choices.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago* (23 children)

    Well, I expected them to capitulate while shuddering and moaning and begging for more, because that's what they love, but I would expect a not-shit company to not lead the pack at the very least.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [+] -16 points 10 months ago (22 children)

    What difference does that make?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 10 months ago (21 children)

    You're right, there's no harm to complying in advance. Let's do it!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [+] -18 points 10 months ago (20 children)
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago (13 children)

    complying in advance is incredibly dangerous

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 10 months ago (12 children)
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    https://lithub.com/resist-authoritarianism-by-refusing-to-obey-in-advance/

    bottom line: compliance to fascism before it's forced you to comply is how fascism goes from visible in the public sphere to all consuming slaughter machine. the best way to resist fascism is early and often. make them work for it. especially when the current iteration is fundamentally composed of lazy losers

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Its irrational radicals like you who are undermining the resistance effort

    Just pick up a severe eating disorder, donate all your money to the heritage foundation, and play a round of Russian roulette every night. Spin that cylinder! For the resistance!

    Fucking insane children trying yo undermine real, serious adult resistance. I swear if the fascists win it will be all your fault.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    took me longer than i would have liked to realize you were joking 😂

    we live in a nightmare…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    This is not even remotely the same thing. This article is talking about doing something that you are asked to do by fascists or anticipate being illegal. The situation we're discussing is literally already signed law and it's simply a matter of (a very specific) time before it's mandated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    i wanted to take some time to review and reflect, and i cannot bring myself to the same conclusion. as you said, the mandate does not exist yet. plus, this fascist regime has invented new ways of losing in the courts because they simply don't have total control yet. bluesky has the resources to fight for their users right in court. by choosing not to wait for a court order or even put up a minimal legal resistance, they complied in advance. to me, their decision to remove these posts or ban these accounts reflects not a requirement to comply, but instead company values. they thought it would be easier and cheaper to roll over. i think this is ultimately the underlying flaw of for-profit media companies so i'm not surprised, and the conclusion i reach is that with a for profit media company, i am the product. as the product, i can refuse to have my attention sold to the highest bidder as an "impression." if i don't like fascism, i don't use bluesky. so i don't

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    the mandate does not exist yet

    It does.

    bluesky has the resources to fight for their users right in court.

    They don't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    then why restore the posts and accounts? why did you say the mandate would exist soon instead of already? and yes. the absolutely have the money to hire a lawyer and put forward the legal deposits to challenge this in court. any company with more than 50 employees not approaching bankruptcy filings does

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    why did you say the mandate would exist soon instead of already?

    You're mixing up various timelines. There is the date it was signed into law, and the date it was enforced, and these are both in the past. BSky enacted this between the 2.

    the absolutely have the money to hire a lawyer and put forward the legal deposits to challenge this in court.

    It would be a waste of money. There's no way a scrappy startup wins a lawsuit of that scale against a state government or especially even an international one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    That delicious leather-rubber-mud taste.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    I'm gonna state a new law, it needs you to rip one of your nails off and send it for age verification so you better start ripping it off

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 10 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    it's the law brochacho you better start complying

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 33 points 10 months ago

    Oh no, surprise, censorship on a centralized platform. No one saw that coming.

  • source
  • [+] 96 points 10 months ago (20 children)
  • [–] 32 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    I'm pretty sure he has nothing to do with bluesky. i think he's into nostr now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    Nothing might be going too far. He left the board since it wasn't good PR for them but Bluesky is not transparent about its ownership and Dorsey could well still have a stake in it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    They have talked about some parts of it. They got funding from Twitter under his direction and got to keep the funds when Twitter bailed on their side of the contract as Musk bought it (the initial plan was to move Twitter to a new protocol)

    It's a public benefit corporation. Jack can't legally do much at all after having left the board

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (4 children)

    yeah I'm aware... doesn't really refute anything I said. If he holds a share then he can do what any investor can do and how much he can do depends on how big his share of the company is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    No, public benefit corporations specifically don't work like that. They're comparable to non profits in that manner

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    They're not. In practice PBC status doesn't really limit them very much at all and is nothing like nonprofit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    That really depends on the state and company bylaws. It's not just a label.

    https://bsky.social/about/faq

    The existing team (which jack isn't on) owns it, and nobody from Twitter has influence over it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    It's not just a label but it guarantees practically nothing because it only means they are allowed to consider things other than shareholder profit. It doesn't in any way ensure that they do and a PBC is mostly treated just the same as a for-profit company.

    Obviously it isn't just the team that owns Bluesky at this point since they have had multiple rounds where they've raised venture capital. That is an old bit of information that I think they still have up on the site despite it being both vague and obviously false.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago

    i largely guage the toxicity of platforms by how quickly you encounter a genocide denier. nostr holds the record in that i encountered one on there literally as soon as i finished onboarding. a record that can only be tied, not beaten

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    Crypto bro here and I agree wholeheartedly. Crypto shouldn't be anyone's whole personality. Social networking doesn't need money baked into it - it just needs decentralized moderation, and we can donate out of band. Anyone who wants to improve society somewhat should be on the fediverse right now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Because for Americans when something went wrong it can never be a systemic issue by design. It was because all the fault of a person.

    See also why they keep voting Democrat.(but this time fresh new blood will change it for real!)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    You've never met an american?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 73 points 10 months ago (10 children)

    Fuck bluesky.

    Anyone using it over Mastodon to protest twitter is a moron.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    Obay but can I use mastodon in a way that let's me choke on corporate dick? Because choking on corporate dick is kind of my favorite thing. Whole reason inhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 20 points 10 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    There's a really fucked up reason why I couldn't make a linked in account if I wanted to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    I thought Mastodon was dead tbh

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    like when you looked into it you didn't find much you were interested in, or like the people you were interested in have left that way of interacting with the fediverse? between the threadiverse and the microblog portion of the fediverse, we are by far engaging with the less popular and populous way of interacting with the fediverse

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

    The rewards of legally unnecessary moderation. Not the first unpopular incident of censorship by bluesky, either.

  • source
  • [+] 14 points 10 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 17 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    wow if we can't trust me jack dorsey who can we even trust anymore‽

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Jay sucks too all on her own.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

    ^ this is an important detail people seem to miss

    It quickly became clear that users understood something Bluesky didn’t: Bluesky couldn’t code away social problems on the app. At some point, Bluesky’s leadership would have to do something about users who were openly racist, transphobic, misogynist, or otherwise abusive.

    Nevertheless, the CEO’s solution was something she called “compostable moderation,” a skeet labelling system that users with the financial resources and technical know-how could develop and deploy on their own little corner of Bluesky. In practice, this was a way to outsource responsibility. Rather than Bluesky taking accountability for hate speech or death threats, users were expected to moderate themselves

    ...

    In short, Bluesky’s moderation is not neutral; it is selective. The platform is quick to silence, censor, or ban users it finds inconvenient or embarrassing, yet consistently unwilling to act against hate speech, misinformation, or other antisocial behaviour.

    https://plutopsyche.medium.com/blueskys-ceo-meltdown-how-leadership-continues-to-fail-its-most-marginalized-users-8bfa7a8824b4

    It amazes me how babylike some adult humans understanding of the world really is, did they NOT expect that to happen? That is precisely what I figured would happen and I am no genius, it is just common sense?

    https://abovethelaw.com/legal-innovation-center/2022/11/04/hey-elon-let-me-help-you-speed-run-the-content-moderation-learning-curve/

    Congratulations, you have completed the game…. Just kidding! It never ends. It only gets worse, and you will make mistakes, and people will get mad and personally blame you and insist that you are deliberately trying to “censor” their brilliant ideas, and advertisers will get mad, and politicians will pressure you into doing their bidding, and the media will criticize every mistake. You own a social network. Isn’t it fun?

    Moderation IS the hard part of running an online community, all the programming and technical details are the easy part with clear answers and rational obstacles.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago
    [–] 6 points 10 months ago

    Bsky hates its users

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    21 comments in c/technology@lemmy.ml view that post