Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report • Hacker News Board

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#121

Post by tastyface » Sat, Jan 31, 2026, 11:09 PM UTC

frumplestlatz wrote: post #118

tastyface wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

"Speaking over a video link, the tech billionaire criticised 'uncontrolled migration', later adding: 'Whether you choose violence or not, violence is coming to you. You either fight back or you die.'" https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0m4rz0pvmno.amp

"Elon Musk says 'civil war is inevitable' as UK rocked by far-right riots." https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/06/tech/elon-musk-civil-war-uk-r...

"Elon Musk calls for dissolution of parliament at far-right rally in London" https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/13/elon-musk...

"Musk reposted meme saying people who benefit from federal programs are the 'Parasite Class'" https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-musk-reposted-meme-120...

Calls to violence and illegal action, dehumanization, demands for exclusion, rejection of individual rights and constitutional order -- oh yes. All of the above. These are his Twitter-brain-rotted bread and butter.

Also, did I say we should arrest Elon Musk for hate speech? I said that inflammatory white supremacist rhetoric viscerally disgusts me, as does using a social platform owned by a white supremacist, and I want none of my attention or money going to any of his warped enterprises. This is not exactly rocket science and does not require a philosophical dissection.

(I assume you generated your response with an LLM so not sure why I even bother.)

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#122

Post by frumplestlatz » Sun, Feb 01, 2026, 12:20 AM UTC

tastyface wrote: post #121

frumplestlatz wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

"Speaking over a video link, the tech billionaire criticised 'uncontrolled migration', later adding: 'Whether you choose violence or not, violence is coming to you. You either fight back or you die.'" https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0m4rz0pvmno.amp "Elon Musk says 'civil war is inevitable' as UK rocked by far-right riots." https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/06/tech/elon-musk-civil-war-uk-r... "Elon Musk calls for dissolu…

I’m not disputing that Musk says things you find objectionable. I’m pointing out that his statement -- and these statements -- do not cross the thresholds you’re claiming they do. Yours is a claim of moral contamination, not an argument. Thresholds don’t matter, refutation doesn’t matter, and context doesn’t matter.

Nothing you’ve quoted here meets the content thresholds you've invoked: no call to violence or illegal action, no dehumanization, no demand for exclusion, no rejection of individual rights or constitutional order.

This is not, by any logically justifiable standard, "white supremacy".

> (I assume you generated your response with an LLM so not sure why I even bother.)

No, but you would benefit from asking an LLM to analyze your responses for logical entailment before posting them.

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#123

Post by dmos62 » Sun, Feb 01, 2026, 10:12 PM UTC

Diti wrote: post #87

dmos62 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're complaining about the banning of illustrations featuring furries being raped? That's what non-consentual means here? I must be misreading this.

Yes, that’s what non-consensual could mean here (it also encompasses consensual non-consent, to be accurate). This kind of content (illustrated & fictional) isn’t illegal in most jurisdictions, as far as I know. Small aside, consent also depends on the jurisdiction – in mine, it must be verbal, so it means that if I were to draw a situation which involves a character being forced to do something but showing their con…

I appreciate the level-headed tone.