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

111–120 of 123 posts

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#111

Post by frumplestlatz »

slater wrote: post #110
nate_meurer wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the Obama comparison is very useful. Trump faces a vastly more difficult problem than Obama did. For most of his presidency, Obama simply continued the Operation Streamline era policies that he inherited from Bush. He didn't have to clean up after a previous administration that had completely lost control of the border, allowing somewhere between ten and forty million immigrants through. And Obama didn'…

> He didn't have to clean up after a previous administration every dem president has to clean up after a republican president

That’s a slogan, not an argument. The point being made -- and made well, deserving of consideration -- was about institutional conditions (sanctuary laws, state non-cooperation, scale of inflows) that simply didn’t exist during Obama’s early years, regardless of party.

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#112

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

frumplestlatz wrote: post #109
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, we must be accurate in our terms, but that misclassifcation isn't worse than the act itself. The generation of deepfake non-consensual sexual images isn't revenge porn, because the woman in the image didn't even given initial consent. It being used to harass women is still a problem and is the sort of thing that requires moderation. It's not "sophomoric", it's exploitative and, in some states, illegal.

You’ve agreed this isn’t revenge porn. The case for moderation must stand or fall under the correct classification. Harm has not been demonstrated. Annoyance or offense is not injury, and discomfort is not exploitation. Without evidence of systematic, material harm -- and without showing that enforcement would not introduce greater error and speech suppression -- the justification for moderation fails. Vague claims o…

> invoking “illegal in some states” -- without naming conduct and statute -- is just noise.

Ok, sure[1]. I don't know why I am, but I'm surprised people are going to bat for this. Where is your line, exactly? Is it legality? Is it further along?

[1] https://calmatters.org/economy/technology/2026/01/california...

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#113

Post by frumplestlatz »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #112
frumplestlatz wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’ve agreed this isn’t revenge porn. The case for moderation must stand or fall under the correct classification. Harm has not been demonstrated. Annoyance or offense is not injury, and discomfort is not exploitation. Without evidence of systematic, material harm -- and without showing that enforcement would not introduce greater error and speech suppression -- the justification for moderation fails. Vague claims o…

> invoking “illegal in some states” -- without naming conduct and statute -- is just noise. Ok, sure[1]. I don't know why I am, but I'm surprised people are going to bat for this. Where is your line, exactly? Is it legality? Is it further along? [1] https://calmatters.org/economy/technology/2026/01/california...

That article doesn’t contradict the point. The relevant laws hinge on explicit sexual content, nudity, or sexual acts, plus specific elements like intent or reckless facilitation. A non-explicit "put them in a bikini" image does not meet that threshold on its own. If prosecutors continue to argue otherwise, that theory will have to survive First Amendment scrutiny. I wish them the best of luck in that endeavor and look forward to its resolution.

>> The level of alarm being applied here is grossly disproportionate to the act itself and is merely being used as a pretext for broader intervention.

> I don't know why I am, but I'm surprised people are going to bat for this. Where is your line, exactly? Is it legality? Is it further along?

If something is illegal, that’s a clear boundary and the appropriate place for enforcement. If it’s legal, the burden is on anyone arguing for restriction to explain why speech controls are justified despite that -- what concrete harm exists, why existing law is insufficient, and why the remedy won’t create more error or suppression than it prevents.

Absent that showing, "this feels bad" or "this is alarming" isn’t a standard.

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#114

Post by elsonrodriguez »

nate_meurer wrote: post #104
elsonrodriguez wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the current state of immigration policy was forged in a bipartisan agreement(it wasn't), it would be inhumane and I would condemn it. Fortunately the Republicans, specifically Tom Homan and Stephen Miller, can be shown to have a record of dehumanizing people to the point of cruelty. As far as anyone could tell they were behind the effort to separate children from their families, and the decision to intentiona…

I don't think the Obama comparison is very useful. Trump faces a vastly more difficult problem than Obama did. For most of his presidency, Obama simply continued the Operation Streamline era policies that he inherited from Bush. He didn't have to clean up after a previous administration that had completely lost control of the border, allowing somewhere between ten and forty million immigrants through. And Obama didn'…

Your argument is ultimately that it’s ok to ignore the constitution, civil rights, and human decency because it’s time to do things “the hard way”.

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#115

Post by elsonrodriguez »

frumplestlatz wrote: post #102
elsonrodriguez wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the current state of immigration policy was forged in a bipartisan agreement(it wasn't), it would be inhumane and I would condemn it. Fortunately the Republicans, specifically Tom Homan and Stephen Miller, can be shown to have a record of dehumanizing people to the point of cruelty. As far as anyone could tell they were behind the effort to separate children from their families, and the decision to intentiona…

This is a category error. Immigration enforcement -- even when abusive or unlawful, which is not a concession I make -- is not genocide. Invoking 1939 Germany collapses distinctions that matter. Holocaust analogies based on unsupported anecdote and asserted intent aren’t analysis; they’re unfalsifiable rhetorical escalations designed to end debate. If every disliked policy is treated as a "seed" of genocide, as is no…

> but don’t pretend this is some novel or uniquely partisan creation.

There is no need to pretend. The specific excesses I mentioned are Republican actions. The Democrat failures do not excuse the illegal and immoral Republican cruelty.

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#116

Post by frumplestlatz »

elsonrodriguez wrote: post #115
frumplestlatz wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a category error. Immigration enforcement -- even when abusive or unlawful, which is not a concession I make -- is not genocide. Invoking 1939 Germany collapses distinctions that matter. Holocaust analogies based on unsupported anecdote and asserted intent aren’t analysis; they’re unfalsifiable rhetorical escalations designed to end debate. If every disliked policy is treated as a "seed" of genocide, as is no…

> but don’t pretend this is some novel or uniquely partisan creation. There is no need to pretend. The specific excesses I mentioned are Republican actions. The Democrat failures do not excuse the illegal and immoral Republican cruelty.

You are assuming priors that you have not argued, much less proven.

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#117

Post by frumplestlatz »

elsonrodriguez wrote: post #114
nate_meurer wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the Obama comparison is very useful. Trump faces a vastly more difficult problem than Obama did. For most of his presidency, Obama simply continued the Operation Streamline era policies that he inherited from Bush. He didn't have to clean up after a previous administration that had completely lost control of the border, allowing somewhere between ten and forty million immigrants through. And Obama didn'…

Your argument is ultimately that it’s ok to ignore the constitution, civil rights, and human decency because it’s time to do things “the hard way”.

That’s not what was argued. “The hard way” refers to institutional difficulty, not illegality — specifically, enforcing federal law in the face of state non-compliance and sanctuary policies.

Difficulty does not equal unconstitutionality. If you think the measures required violate specific constitutional provisions or civil-rights protections, name them and explain how.

Otherwise, this is an empty moral reframe that clumsily sidesteps concrete claims about enforcement feasibility and changed conditions.

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#118

Post by frumplestlatz »

tastyface wrote: post #108
frumplestlatz wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Personally endorsed by Musk: "If white men become a minority, we will be slaughtered. Remember, if non-Whites openly hate White men while White men hold a collective majority, then they will be 1000x times [sic] more hostile and cruel when they are a majority over whites. White solidarity is the only way to survive." https://religiondispatches.org/2026/01/09/musk-endorsed-whit... And this is "anodyne" to you? Persona…

Musk’s “endorsed” statement is weak because it overgeneralizes, treats racial categories as coherent agents, and pessimistically assumes institutional failure. But none of that makes it unspeakable or uniquely dangerous.

What’s notable is what the statement doesn’t contain: no call to violence or illegal action, no dehumanization, no demand for exclusion, and no rejection of individual rights or constitutional order.

Those absences matter, because they’re the thresholds that normally justify treating speech as exceptional rather than refutable. Treating a contestable prediction as a moral emergency is exactly the reaction I was pointing at.

At that point the objection becomes about perceived ideological contamination.

Equivalent — and equivalently weak — arguments are accepted prima facie from others when they’re framed in the language of vulnerability and historical grievance. “White supremacy” has become a catch-all classifier that short-circuits analysis asymmetrically, while similar reasoning elsewhere passes without scrutiny.

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#119

Post by nate_meurer »

slater wrote: post #110
nate_meurer wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the Obama comparison is very useful. Trump faces a vastly more difficult problem than Obama did. For most of his presidency, Obama simply continued the Operation Streamline era policies that he inherited from Bush. He didn't have to clean up after a previous administration that had completely lost control of the border, allowing somewhere between ten and forty million immigrants through. And Obama didn'…

> He didn't have to clean up after a previous administration every dem president has to clean up after a republican president

When is comes to immigration in particular, that simply isn't true. As I alluded to in my comment, Obama inherited Bush's Operation Streamline immigration regime, which was running like a Swiss watch in comparison to the mess we have now. Over the course of his two terms, Obama squandered his inheritance as the progressives encroached. By election season in 2015, the progressive model was being embraced by mainstream Democrats, and was pretty plainly admitting to open-borders aspirations. In my opinion, this more than anything handed Trump his first election victory. If there was one thing that could convince the normies that we need a border wall-- whether literal or symbolic-- it was the sudden realization that the Left was serious about open borders and unlimited immigration.

And of course, not to be outdone by Obama, Joe Biden managed to lose control of the border in a manner that has no precedent in American history, once again handing Trump an easy victory. It's like they wanted to lose another election.

To grasp how radically the Democrat party has moved left on immigration, recall that Obama and Hillary Clinton ran against each other on strict immigration enforcement. Here's my favorite Hillary quote from a 2008 campaign speech:

> "If they’ve committed a crime, deport them, no questions asked. They’re gone. If they’re working and law-abiding, we should say here are the conditions for you staying: You have to pay a stiff fine because you came here illegally, you have to pay back taxes, you have to try to learn English, and you have to wait in line."

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#120

Post by nate_meurer »

elsonrodriguez wrote: post #115
frumplestlatz wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a category error. Immigration enforcement -- even when abusive or unlawful, which is not a concession I make -- is not genocide. Invoking 1939 Germany collapses distinctions that matter. Holocaust analogies based on unsupported anecdote and asserted intent aren’t analysis; they’re unfalsifiable rhetorical escalations designed to end debate. If every disliked policy is treated as a "seed" of genocide, as is no…

> but don’t pretend this is some novel or uniquely partisan creation. There is no need to pretend. The specific excesses I mentioned are Republican actions. The Democrat failures do not excuse the illegal and immoral Republican cruelty.

What do you mean by "Democrat failures"? The Democratic party doesn't believe Biden's immigration policy was a failure, and in fact the official party position seems to be that Biden didn't open the border enough. Democrat politicians have committed to more of the same, and dozens of cities and states controlled by progressives have put sanctuary policies in place that almost completely forbid immigration control of any kind.

Help me out here. Its not clear to me what the Left considers a failure.

Post reply on HN