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

Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

chrisholdgraf.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 561 posts

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#331

Post by Peteragain »

lylo wrote: post #322

It’s an interesting point but social media (especially X and Bluesky) is largely ephemeral content. If it goes away, what have you really lost? Hot takes? Running your own blog on your own domain is a good idea and anything long-form would be on there not Bluesky, no? The vast majority of people will run their blog on a platform though, be that Wordpress or Bear or Ghost etc all of which (in theory!) could go away. W…

Good point. Perhaps needs a unique key so transportable content is citable.. DOIs are an example, or ISBNs for the ultimate in transportable content!

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#332

Post by foxglacier »

stavros wrote: post #77
igravious wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they may be confused by it yet it is not a hard concept

People being confused by a concept is the definition of it being hard.

No, it can just be because they haven't been exposed to it or needed to care about it. Obviously people's real names have similar problems and nobody is confused that John Smith isn't the same person as John Jones.

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#333

Post by josteink »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #325
josteink wrote: post #324

My interest for bluesky is practically non-existent as long as they ban people for posting commonly held views and scientific facts. I’m not going to invest in a platform where fear of banning is a thing from the get go.

Can you give an example? It sounds like you have something specific in mind.

Things like this? https://lunduke.locals.com/post/6505039/bluesky-bans-lunduke...

And this: https://x.com/clownworld_/status/1858194893249917377?s=46

And this: https://x.com/immeme0/status/1872482191869132932?s=46

Etc. They seem REALLY ban-happy over there.

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#334

Post by fuzztester »

dingaling wrote: post #170
robertlagrant wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. I've had that conversation more than once. They get very suspicious! And probably triggers internal meetings with cyber.

I can only dream that it triggers meetings with security. I once started receiving spam addressed to @ .org and after several instances I reported it to MyBankName. I explained that I only used that address in my dealings with them and so it must have leaked from them. They said that's not how email works, you have one address that you use with all your contacts. One of them must have leaked it. I tried to explain th…

why didn't you close the account instead, after transferring your balance, to send them a stronger message?

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#335

Post by doshaa »

josteink wrote: post #333
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give an example? It sounds like you have something specific in mind.

Things like this? https://lunduke.locals.com/post/6505039/bluesky-bans-lunduke... And this: https://x.com/clownworld_/status/1858194893249917377?s=46 And this: https://x.com/immeme0/status/1872482191869132932?s=46 Etc. They seem REALLY ban-happy over there.

You see it as a problem, i see it as a benefit, Main reason i dislike twitter/X is the amount of pointless grift that goes around, some for monetary reasons, Either behave like a human or leave, "I posted some dog whistle and got banned for it" is actually a great ad for Bluesky.

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#336

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

josteink wrote: post #333
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give an example? It sounds like you have something specific in mind.

Things like this? https://lunduke.locals.com/post/6505039/bluesky-bans-lunduke... And this: https://x.com/clownworld_/status/1858194893249917377?s=46 And this: https://x.com/immeme0/status/1872482191869132932?s=46 Etc. They seem REALLY ban-happy over there.

That first one looks like a first-person account, so I'm guessing is probably heavily biased; I couldn't watch the full video without creating an account, which I'm not prepared to do right now.

The second is clearly an account attempting to get banned. Regardless of what you post, if you're actively trying to get banned, I don't care that much when you do.

The third is probably the most concerning, although he doesn't provide any specific evidence about what he actually posted, so must be taken with a grain of salt.

In general, I'm really against services banning you without clear reason or ability to challenge. See also gmail, X, amazon, etc. etc. In terms of "free speech" vs. "censorship", I'd like a healthy mix for my social media service of choice (whether that ends up being Bluesky or something else). I don't want people to be excluded simply for expressing an opinion. I do want people excluded if they are harassing others—or worse, obviously.

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#337

Post by ant6n »

I have tried Bluesky, but for now it seems rather bland. Tried to follow a bunch of people I know from X, but then it kept suggesting astronomy photos or photos of sun up landscapes (with a text like „have a happy new day“).

Little discussion on current events, little interesting insights.

It’s definitely less of a chess pool than twitter, much less random violence and less rage bait as well.

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#338

Post by minitech »

josteink wrote: post #333
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give an example? It sounds like you have something specific in mind.

Things like this? https://lunduke.locals.com/post/6505039/bluesky-bans-lunduke... And this: https://x.com/clownworld_/status/1858194893249917377?s=46 And this: https://x.com/immeme0/status/1872482191869132932?s=46 Etc. They seem REALLY ban-happy over there.

Nothing concrete in any of those links, but they all smack of bad faith (and the middle one didn’t even depict a ban).

That said, if people whose entire personality is being anti-trans perceive Bluesky as ban-happy and aren’t interested in it, I see that as a win.

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#339

Post by rswail »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #326
pavel_lishin wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have my own domain, and have email set up so that any email to that domain goes to me. You'd be surprised (well, nobody here on HN would be) to know how many times I tell a business that my email is "their-business@my-domain.com", and they ask me how I got that email address, whether I work for their company, etc.

Even giving them "email+their-business@gmail.com" (instead of email@gmail.com), as every single Gmail user is able to do, will no doubt sow confusion.

I always allocate an email of my+company@myemail.com and the number of email validators that don't accept that "+" is a legit email character is infuriating.

Re: Trying to use Bluesky without getting burned again

#340

Post by mozarella »

Related : Corey Doctrow's article (again) about how he doesn't trust Bluesky enough to move there from mastodon. Especially Bluesky's promise to allow users to migrate to another host in the fediverse.

https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2024-11-02...

Older article : https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/06/fool-me-twice-we-dont-get...

Post reply on HN