this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2024
3 points (100.0% liked)

🦋 Bluesky Social

281 readers
1 users here now

Bluesky is a federated social network built on ATProtocol.

Rules:

  1. Follow lemmy.ml's site-wide rules.
  2. All posts must, in some way, relate to Bluesky or ATProto.
  3. Do not make duplicate posts.

Useful Links:

News, discussion, and memes are all allowed here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
airportline@lemmy.ml
Emperor@feddit.uk
airportline@lemm.ee
3
Bluesky at a crossroads as users petition to ban Jesse Singal over anti-trans views, harassment | TechCrunch (techcrunch.com)
submitted 3 months ago by dessalines@lemmy.ml to c/bluesky@lemmy.ml
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (3 children)

And so it beings - the first adopters try to impose their views to keep the community how they wanted it.

The decision has to be between whether you want to be a place for free discourse or not. If you want free discourse then you don't start banning people you don't agree with.

We have a major problem across social media at the moment of people confusing being offended or disagreeing with views with those views being "extremist".

I have no idea what the views of the person in the article are, but the Idea of a supposedly federated platform like blusky banning people is a bit rediculous. It only works while you have one big instance but once federation comes it may get messy.

I personally find the armies of people saying "you're not allowed to say that" are generally worse than the people saying the thing that started it. Doesn't matter whether it's trans issues or CEO murders - I don't need "protecting" from ideas I may not agree with.

We seem to be increasingly falling into a trap of content being filtered and "made safe" for Adults as if we're children.

[–] Chip_Rat@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

"I don't need "protecting" from ideas I may not agree with."

That's because you aren't the target. This isn't a discussion about if Love Island is groundbreaking tv or brain melting mush, it's about whether people are allowed to exist. Check your privilege and maybe try and exercise a little empathy.

[–] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Who said anything about people being allowed to exist?

[–] knightly@pawb.social 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

If you have a social media platform then you have two choices for who's allowed to exist on it.

Either you let the Nazis stay and watch helplessly as they drive everyone they don't like off your platform, or you ban the Nazis so that you can keep everyone else.

You don't get to have it both ways. Choosing not to moderate will always create a safe space for Nazis.

[–] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Do you have any evidence that the person in question is a Nazi? Or are you using the word in the “anyone I disagree with” sense?

[–] knightly@pawb.social 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Who is "the person in question"? Did you think I was talking about someone specific?

I'm using the term "Nazi" as a shorthand because listing all the fascist ideologies of those who would prefer to see people like me dead would be a waste of time. I feel like this is an extremely common usage that only ever gets challenged by people who are personally invested in distancing Naziism from their own personal brand of bigotry.

I am entirely uninterested in quibbling about where exactly is the line between a literal Nazi and someone who merely acts like one.

[–] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Who is "the person in question"? Did you think I was talking about someone specific?

Since the original post is about a specific person, yes, this was my assumption.

listing all the fascist ideologies of those who would prefer to see people like me dead would be a waste of time.

Who wants anyone dead?

[–] knightly@pawb.social 1 points 3 months ago

Nazis.

Please pay attention.

[–] smallpatatas@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

I have no idea what the views of the person in the article are, but the Idea of a supposedly federated platform like blusky banning people is a bit ridiculous

This take is ridiculous, more like.

The whole point of federation is that each provider is responsible for moderation on their own service. Bluesky is indeed running a service, not just writing the AT Protocol specification. It shouldn't be controversial to boot people who have explicitly said they're there to promote bigotry.

And, because federation, then those bigots can make their own instance, right? Sure, and the Bluesky instance and everyone else should then defederate that instance due to harassment.

That's how federation works.

[–] chillBurner@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago

I personally find the armies of people saying “you’re not allowed to say that” are generally worse than the people saying the thing that started it.

We seem to be increasingly falling into a trap of content being filtered and “made safe” for Adults as if we’re children.

For real. Like why can't I call white people "cumskin devil" and "crackers" at work as a joke? Truly our society has gone le WOKE.