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

151–160 of 410 posts

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

#151

Post by Devasta »

AlexandrB wrote: post #47
a_shovel wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

> This is effectively saying that the goal is to have a social media site where half the country is not welcome.

That seems like a good goal. I want to chat with friends about formula one or whatever, not have to have everything messed up by some weirdo who always wants to debate whether minorities have rights.

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

#153

Post by mustache_kimono »

rtpg wrote: post #137
TinkersW wrote: post #60

From the article I got the impression Singal was some far right loon, but after looking it up.. nope, he is a liberal that said something mildly out of sync with trans activists opinions...

The guy's whole bit is arguing from some sort of vague sociological perspective against gender affirming care. And pretending that (in the United States of America of all places) teens can just walk up to their doctors super easily and get surgery done somehow. He presents this issue as a sort of parental-rights-ignoring epidemic, but if you dig into the reality of it all there's a hell of a lot of parental consent,…

> And pretending that (in the United States of America of all places) teens can just walk up to their doctors super easily and get surgery done somehow.

You should see some of the background evidence on this. NY Times did a podcast series not long ago, which covered the controversy, called The Protocol: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-protocol/id1817731...

It was about how the so called Dutch Protocol re: gender affirming care first came to the US, and how long-ish psychological evaluation times were often truncated because of how far patients had to travel in the US. Then the lid flew off when such care moved to California.

> Singal is a fellow traveler to people who defend conversion therapy

Yikes. One doesn't usually expect people to use the actual language of McCarthy-ites.

> So who is Singal out there fighting for?

The kids? It's really not crazy to believe that the children, perhaps not given adequate care, could simply be wrong, or even socially influenced (like everything else in a teenager's life).

> He's going out there writing this kind of stuff so consistently that he's known for it. And I have a very hard time understanding who he is the voice for, except for people who are just against trans people existing in public society.

It's a new treatment and how it is practiced here in the US is the very Q he is examining. I'm not saying he's right, but I do feel better if there is someone with a critical eye looking at new treatment methods.

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

#154

Post by jazzyjackson »

astrange wrote: post #109
Arathorn wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mjolnir is designed to apply decentralised public blocklists - i.e. you pick which banlists to apply; there are a bunch published by different people (matrix.org, the matrix 'community moderation effort', etc). Admittedly moderators do share lists (so that if #archlinux bans you, others might pick up the ban), but there's no intrinsic centralisation. https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/msc2313/propos... is…

BlueSky also has this, but it works poorly because people use blocklists as a form of harassment, or else take over existing lists and add their enemies to it.

And bluesky has the ultimate power of choosing which blocklists to show you

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

#155

Post by astrange »

dragonwriter wrote: post #133
astrange wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually very similar to Bluesky discourse last week, where US protest organizers sent out emails asking people to RSVP and all the activist posters got upset and started lecturing everyone that if you want to go to a protest you must first turn off all your electronics and second make sure nobody else knows you were ever there, or else the police will come get you. The problem with this is... if you have fre…

> This is actually very similar to Bluesky discourse last week, where US protest organizers sent out emails asking people to RSVP and all the activist posters got upset and started lecturing everyone that if you want to go to a protest you must first turn off all your electronics and second make sure nobody else knows you were ever there, or else the police will come get you. The clash there is between people who thi…

> and people who think they are living in a fascist state that has declared, and intends to treat, them as domestic terrorists and are protesting to rally opposition.

You're describing the US South in the 60s. The civil rights protestors did not respond by becoming black block anarchists, they responded by doing civil disobedience and getting their faces on TV.

If you're an upper middle class internet user you're actually more respectable than the security forces and can defeat them by showing up. What are they going to do, get NTBed again?

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-07-23/proteste...

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

#156

Post by lkey »

whistlestop wrote: post #68
monocularvision wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”.

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.

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.

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

#157

Post by this_user »

Simulacra wrote: post #22

"..systems that reward outrage only make the problem worse.” I think this is what a lot of social media has become, particularly as people isolate themselves to only those sources and feeds they agree with.

The problem with a lot of social media is that a lot of it allows you to either directly or indirectly monetise engagement. That creates an strong incentive to create outrage.

This has also been discussed in the context of FB's feed where optimising for engagement has inadvertently led to a situation where users are constantly being bombarded with ragebait.

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

#159

Post by rtpg »

mustache_kimono wrote: post #153
rtpg wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The guy's whole bit is arguing from some sort of vague sociological perspective against gender affirming care. And pretending that (in the United States of America of all places) teens can just walk up to their doctors super easily and get surgery done somehow. He presents this issue as a sort of parental-rights-ignoring epidemic, but if you dig into the reality of it all there's a hell of a lot of parental consent,…

> And pretending that (in the United States of America of all places) teens can just walk up to their doctors super easily and get surgery done somehow. You should see some of the background evidence on this. NY Times did a podcast series not long ago, which covered the controversy, called The Protocol: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-protocol/id1817731... It was about how the so called Dutch Protocol re: g…

I am going to re-insist on the idea that parental consent is going to play a big role in practice in US healthcare practices, if only for financial reasons. I have very little patience for the idea that access is easy.

Perhaps there is a debate to be had on treatment protocols, but I generally feel like, for something that covers such a small segment of the population, the default is to err towards letting that debate happen in professional circles.

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

#160

Post by JuniperMesos »

jrflowers wrote: post #40
chimeracoder wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

> 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.

This is an insane thing to ban in the terms of service, and it is in and of itself a good reason to avoid using BlueSky. I would not want to rely on any service to communicate that made it against the rules to post a screenshot of a public message from someone who blocked my account on their end.

Post reply on HN