Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

plus.flux.community

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 410 posts

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#41

Post by mustache_kimono »

chimeracoder wrote: post #27
mustache_kimono wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Doxxing people off-platform used to be against the ToS. When people began reporting him for that, Bluesky amended their ToS.

> 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.

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#42

Post by andrewmcwatters »

chimeracoder wrote: post #25
andrewmcwatters wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean "misandry?"

> Do you mean "misandry?" No, OP is being transphobic and referring to trans women as men: > Note that the "banning controversy" is that they're not banning enough people for having entirely mainstream political opinions, and mostly targets journalists. Or let's be more specific: mostly targets people who don't think that men can identify into being victims of misogyny.

Oh, I see.

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#43

Post by ajs1998 »

chimeracoder wrote: post #15
mustache_kimono wrote: post #7

> 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 pi…

> 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.

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.

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#44

Post by greekrich92 »

mustache_kimono wrote: post #7

> 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 pi…

[flagged]

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#45

Post by chimeracoder »

ajs1998 wrote: post #43
chimeracoder wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#46

Post by Palomides »

mustache_kimono wrote: post #7

> 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 pi…

"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

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#47

Post by AlexandrB »

a_shovel wrote: post #35
AlexandrB wrote: post #12

> 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. So the expectation is that the vice president of the United States should be banned because he says stuff people don't like? What's the…

All social media moderation is "banning people for saying stuff people don't like". Most people don't like e.g. spam, or death threats, or racism, so social media offer communication platforms where those kinds of speech are restricted, with varying degrees of effort and success. The goal of banning Vance would be to have a social media site that moderates against the kinds of things Vance says.

This makes some sense if Vance was a minor, fringe figure. But he was on a ticket voted for by ~50% of US voters. This is effectively saying that the goal is to have a social media site where half the country is not welcome.

The problem with that is two-fold. One, it neuters any political impact - you're effectively driving away the very voters you need to convince. And two, it creates an echo chamber that distorts reality because everywhere you look people are agreeing with you. Then 2028 rolls around and you're shocked that "the bad guys" won again.

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#48

Post by dlivingston »

packetlost wrote: post #20
AlexandrB wrote: post #12

> 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. So the expectation is that the vice president of the United States should be banned because he says stuff people don't like? What's the…

When speech is violence, allowing someone a platform is akin to being party to and supporting .

Speech is not violence, guilt by association is undemocratic, and this hypothesis of de-platforming as a tactic to limit uncouth ideas was thoroughly tested over the last ~15 years and demonstrably shown to be false: Trump, Alex Jones, and many others were banned across platforms. One of these people now sits in the White House, in part because of backlash to the deplatforming of him and others with similar politics.

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#49

Post by isodev »

huhkerrf wrote: post #24
mustache_kimono wrote: post #7

> 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 pi…

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.

> 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.

Re: User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality

#50

Post by ogou »

packetlost wrote: post #20
AlexandrB wrote: post #12

> 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. So the expectation is that the vice president of the United States should be banned because he says stuff people don't like? What's the…

When speech is violence, allowing someone a platform is akin to being party to and supporting .

Speech is not violence.
Post reply on HN