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

Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

bsky.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 123 posts

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#91

Post by egorfine »

extraduder_ire wrote: post #84
egorfine wrote: post #58

It's truly sad to see social networks being complicit in doxxing their users under the guise of "think of the children" by requiring age checks.

Complicit in the sense of complying with the law. What would you prefer they do? If it makes you feel any better, it's more trivially bypassed than any website age-gate I've ever seen. (that's more complicated than a checkbox)

I would like to see some visible resistance from internet companies.

Of course they can comply and then in five years nothing more than cat pictures gets posted online.

(Not that this would be inherently bad)

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#93

Post by frumplestlatz »

elsonrodriguez wrote: post #77
slater wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we're just, once again, speed-running the "which opinions, mfer" goose meme.

I wanted to play devil's advocate here, but unfortunately did find an example of a "politically disapproved position" in frumple's post history: "The deportations will continue regardless of the tantrums of the hysterical and mentally ill." Which ironically is similar to some "1939 Germany" views.

Are you claiming that enforcing existing 2026 U.S. immigration law -- developed through decades of bipartisan agreement and consistent with policies in other liberal democracies -- is in any way comparable to 1939 Germany and their systematic murder of millions?

That comparison is precisely the problem: it distorts history, inflates moral claims, and shuts down serious discussion.

This is also largely the standard level of rhetoric on Bluesky, which is fine -- but manufactured consensus on a heavily moderated platform is not the same thing as factual or moral authority.

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#94

Post by frumplestlatz »

pfraze wrote: post #44
frumplestlatz wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try participating in discussions with a politically disapproved position and see how fast you're shadow-banned. And no, I'm not talking about "1939 Germany" views.

Did that happen to you, or to anybody you can point to?

Yes. I realize I’m speaking with a Bluesky employee, and to be clear, you’re not really the audience to which I’m appealing. I don’t expect anyone working at the platform to disagree with the ideological framework under which it operates -- or even to recognize it -- and that’s fine. But let’s not pretend it’s neutral or balanced.

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#95

Post by frumplestlatz »

swed420 wrote: post #82
frumplestlatz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US does not have a "far left" in any significant numbers, and never has. Bluesky does, however. Clearly they've made that their target market, but that's also why growing beyond that base seems to be difficult for them,

No. Pre-Musk twitter was a liberal cesspool (and now it's a conservative one). Most of those liberals jumped ship to Bluesky. Again, that's not to say lefists don't exist, but they are a tiny fraction, and always were a tiny fraction no matter what platform. Don't rule out bots that exist in numbers to make the actual left appear like a deranged spectacle as a form of controlled opposition. Both parties of capital in…

The issue isn’t whether “the far left” exists in large numbers in the abstract; it’s how platform design, moderation norms, and social incentives shape which views are amplified -- and which are penalized. On Bluesky, the boundaries of acceptable discourse are unusually narrow and strongly enforced, which predictably produces ideological clustering.

As for bots or “controlled opposition”: you don’t need conspiracy theories to explain why a heavily moderated platform with explicit cultural norms converges on a particular worldview. I’m disinclined to apply anything beyond Occam’s razor when accounting for “deranged spectacle” behavior; ordinary selection effects are sufficient.

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#96

Post by swed420 »

frumplestlatz wrote: post #95
swed420 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Pre-Musk twitter was a liberal cesspool (and now it's a conservative one). Most of those liberals jumped ship to Bluesky. Again, that's not to say lefists don't exist, but they are a tiny fraction, and always were a tiny fraction no matter what platform. Don't rule out bots that exist in numbers to make the actual left appear like a deranged spectacle as a form of controlled opposition. Both parties of capital in…

The issue isn’t whether “the far left” exists in large numbers in the abstract; it’s how platform design, moderation norms, and social incentives shape which views are amplified -- and which are penalized. On Bluesky, the boundaries of acceptable discourse are unusually narrow and strongly enforced, which predictably produces ideological clustering. As for bots or “controlled opposition”: you don’t need conspiracy th…

> On Bluesky, the boundaries of acceptable discourse are unusually narrow and strongly enforced, which predictably produces ideological clustering.

This isn't in conflict with my original comment.

> As for bots or “controlled opposition”: you don’t need conspiracy theories to explain why a heavily moderated platform with explicit cultural norms converges on a particular worldview. I’m disinclined to apply anything beyond Occam’s razor when accounting for “deranged spectacle” behavior; ordinary selection effects are sufficient.

These aren't conspiracy theories, and they pre-date and extend beyond Bluesky. They are easily observable patterns in most modern news media and social media. For one, silos are much easier to advertise to. Follow the money, like everything else.

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#97

Post by Levitz »

swed420 wrote: post #79
Levitz wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The US does not have a "far left" in any significant numbers, and never has. At least not in a self-aware sense. Are they just disproportionately powerful then? Because the US does definitely have consistent far left trends and movements that overtake the mainstream. The OK hand gesture hysteria is maybe an evident example, but land acknowledgments? DEI statements? Fatphobia? Defund the police? All of these originat…

No. Once again you're referring to liberals even if you don't know it. You might be confused because several forces want you to be exactly that: 1) The right lumps/conflates everything from centrist liberal to far left as "the far radical left" with no in-between, which blurs many lines. 2) Center liberals who want a social media veneer they can feel good about will literally pose as leftists/marxists, but if you loo…

>but if you look at their other beliefs and behaviors (were they trying to sink Bernie, or not?)

...No? Bernie was super popular specifically with this audience. The more liberal people described themselves as, the more they supported Bernie: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-defines-the-sander...

You can take the stance that nobody knows what any of these terms mean I guess, but then the picture gets kind of absurd, left-wing materialism loses all meaning, the church loses all relationship with the right, hell, from that standpoint Donald Trump campaigned as a leftist I guess? He did have a recurrent discourse around jobs and the working class.

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#98

Post by frumplestlatz »

swed420 wrote: post #96
frumplestlatz wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue isn’t whether “the far left” exists in large numbers in the abstract; it’s how platform design, moderation norms, and social incentives shape which views are amplified -- and which are penalized. On Bluesky, the boundaries of acceptable discourse are unusually narrow and strongly enforced, which predictably produces ideological clustering. As for bots or “controlled opposition”: you don’t need conspiracy th…

> On Bluesky, the boundaries of acceptable discourse are unusually narrow and strongly enforced, which predictably produces ideological clustering. This isn't in conflict with my original comment. > As for bots or “controlled opposition”: you don’t need conspiracy theories to explain why a heavily moderated platform with explicit cultural norms converges on a particular worldview. I’m disinclined to apply anything be…

I’ve encountered the same rhetoric, tactics, and moral framing in offline activist spaces for years, long before Bluesky or current platform dynamics. Online platforms don’t invent this; they surface and concentrate it. The underlying attitudes -- maximalism, moral absolutism, tolerance for disruption, and readiness to analogize opponents to historical evil -- are not artifacts of bots or manipulation. They’re characteristic features of a political subculture.

If anything, the mistake is treating the "reasonable", aspirational version as more real than the people who consistently show up, organize, and speak — and then assuming the most visible expressions must be "controlled opposition."

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#99

Post by swed420 »

frumplestlatz wrote: post #98
swed420 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On Bluesky, the boundaries of acceptable discourse are unusually narrow and strongly enforced, which predictably produces ideological clustering. This isn't in conflict with my original comment. > As for bots or “controlled opposition”: you don’t need conspiracy theories to explain why a heavily moderated platform with explicit cultural norms converges on a particular worldview. I’m disinclined to apply anything be…

I’ve encountered the same rhetoric, tactics, and moral framing in offline activist spaces for years, long before Bluesky or current platform dynamics. Online platforms don’t invent this; they surface and concentrate it. The underlying attitudes -- maximalism, moral absolutism, tolerance for disruption, and readiness to analogize opponents to historical evil -- are not artifacts of bots or manipulation. They’re charac…

> I’ve encountered the same rhetoric, tactics, and moral framing in offline activist spaces for years, long before Bluesky or current platform dynamics. Online platforms don’t invent this; they surface and concentrate it.

Once again, we seem to be in agreement on this.

> The underlying attitudes -- maximalism, moral absolutism, tolerance for disruption, and readiness to analogize opponents to historical evil -- are not artifacts of bots or manipulation. They’re characteristic features of a political subculture.

These things are not mutually exclusive. It's both, and people (and their bots) across the entire political spectrum are guilty of involvement.

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#100

Post by frumplestlatz »

tastyface wrote: post #89
lukev wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This accusation would have a little more zing, if the person who owns the other place wasn't posting about white replacement almost every day. Pretty shitty that ones choice of social media is so politicized but if you must pick a side... I will pick the non-nazi side, thank you very much!

Yeah, not sure why I'd spend a minute of my time on a social media site where the owner's boosted comments literally make me feel physically ill.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN