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

401–410 of 410 posts

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

#401

Post by [deleted] »

LeroyRaz wrote: post #398
incompatible wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"people who have genuine concerns about things", things like women, non-whites, LGBTIQ, especially trans, atheists, scientists, anti-fascists, even people who don't follow the MAGA party line, such as idolizing Charley Kirk, the list goes on. "Genuine concerns" which are expressed as undisguised or thinly disguised death threats in some cases.

To take the example of trans: yes. Multiple different groups have genuine concerns about trans issues. For example, you have trans people wanting to be respected and not victimized, you have women who fear men being in their spaces, you have parents who fear their children being harmed and encouraged to transition, you have female athletes concerned about unfair competition from people who went through male puberty,…

[deleted]

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

#402

Post by jauntywundrkind »

optimalquiet wrote: post #267
jauntywundrkind wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure there's bad uses, but putting yourself out there, on the public record, and cherishing those others around us doing the same is, in my view, divine. I can't imagine the mindset that wouldn't want to be capturing some of the amazing wonderful world about them & the thoughts in their head & sharing them with others. I find these views about walking away from putting yourself online, seeing only the harm, as being…

You’re entitled to your experience and spirituality, but nothing about Twitter or Bluesky has ever struck me as ‘divine.’ Rather than being a nihilistic flight from value, I think there’s far more value to be found in cultivating friendships and companions in the real world. There’s more divinity in a single hug from my wife than in everything I’ve ever read on the internet. Words have to bend to flesh at some point;…

As a kid growing up, having a connection to other smart people with amazing views I never would have seen or heard of, having access to technologists to develop my interest & skills.

I felt alone in the world, with intense interests, and no way to connect with others or to advance my interests or learn more.

It absolutely was game changing to go to some conferences & meet people, to have some real connections to back this up. The my heavens, not being trapped in my local world was such a liberation. What I get to see and connect with today, having so many people pouring out so much of the selves, is absolutely divinely cherishable.

> Words have to bend to flesh at some point; we are embodied creatures.

An excellent point for debate. To degrees I agree. But feeding and developing the mind: that is a force multiplier that changes who you are in the world about you, and often you run into very real limits, don't have ready material, to further the mind in your local world.

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

#404

Post by amiga386 »

jrflowers wrote: post #97
like_any_other wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he routinely posted screenshots of posts from people that had blocked him I don't like platforms that try to keep me ignorant of what others are publicly saying, keeping me in a non-consensual information bubble. It is basically deception.

> I don't like platforms that try to keep me ignorant of what others are publicly saying That’s neither here nor there. The nuclear block is a big part of how Bluesky works, and abiding by it/was part of the rules for users other than Jesse Singal. The point I made is that other users that share your disagreement with the nuclear block would get suspended or banned for evading it, whereas Jesse Singal would not/does…

> The nuclear block is a big part of how Bluesky works

I don't use Bluesky, but it sounds insane. It sounds like the bank robber who openly robbed a bank, made no attempt to disguise himself, and when questioned by the police, said he didn't understand because he'd rubbed lemon juice on his face so the cameras couldn't see him. He was so certain that would work.

Or when the idiot Boris Johnson said to national newspapers that he'd negotiate with the EU by promising them something, but he'd get the drop on dirty Brussels and he'd stick up for the plucky UK by undermining that agreement later (playing to his safe space / audience of Daily Telegraph readers)... and then he'd turn up at the negotiating table and the EU say to him "er, you know we can read your newspapers, right?"

Having some site rule about how person X can't seen person Y's posts is a trifling irrelevance if person X is a public figure and there's a legitimate journalistic interest in what person Y is saying about person X, in public.

Here are some of the things I understand Bluesky users have said:

* "i think if we all tried hard enough we could get Jesse Singal to kill himself, but that's just me"

* "me and my friends would beat Jesse Singal to death with hammers i can tell you that much"

* "I think Jesse Singal should be beat to death in the streets"

* "Jesse singal get fucked and die stupid kiddy fucker piece of shit trash sub human bitch. Fuck I hope someone breaks every bone in your body and castrated you penis and balls then beat you to death stupid bitch."

* "Jesse Singal has said many times he enjoys getting punched in the face. I am in no way endorsing or inciting violence. I am simply asking the question why not punch Jesse Singal in the face as hard as you can? It's not wrong to ask questions after all."

Now, firstly do you think Bluesky users should be posting these messages at all? But if you do, do you think Bluesky should do its utmost to make sure the target of these threats never gets to see them, and should sanction him if any concerned citizens pass on these messages to him and he acknowledges on Twitter that he has seen them?

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

#405

Post by bigstrat2003 »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #146
huhkerrf wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse than that, as the linked TC article links to an explanation of his ban-worthy views that, if applied to everyone, would lean to a ban of probably 85% of the US. (Purposefully not referencing them here. The question is not whether those views are right, it's whether those are mainstream.) Bluesky has a problem of its user base demanding purity, and it will 100% be the death of it.

> Bluesky has a problem of its user base demanding purity, and it will 100% be the death of it. Yup. As someone who describes themselves as Leftist, I wanted to enjoy Blue Sky, but the purity tests are insane . To give a concrete example, I was called a Nazi for owning a Tesla Model 3. The fact that I bought the car 6 years ago, long before Elon Musk made his hard-right turn, was irrelevant. They literally expected m…

Not to mention that it's unreasonable to levy that accusation even to someone who buys a Tesla today. Doing business with someone does not construe agreement with everything that person does. And while it's everyone's right to decide that they, personally, don't wish to buy a Tesla on the basis of Elon's beliefs, it's nobody's right to demand that everyone else must do so or else they're a Nazi.

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

#406

Post by Karrot_Kream »

yieldcrv wrote: post #126

User and content bans are a great way to make money right now as partisans are super gullible If a platform doesn't ban someone: short it as people say they are cancelling If a platform does ban someone: also short it as people say they are cancelling requires a publicly traded platform like Netflix or Disney+ as significant pieces of the parent company's revenue

I'm curious how you'd make the trade? ABC tried to cancel Jimmy Kimmel the other day. How would you have structured your short?

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

#407

Post by mariusor »

afiori wrote: post #399
mariusor wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I can follow your logic of having smaller communities not being decentralized "at user level" whatever you mean by that. And you hyperfocus on Mastodon - which granted is correct as we're talking about mass adoption and where average users might go - but it is not the only project in the fediverse which is one of the main advantages over BlueSky. (And Mastodon does offer account move between instances, d…

> I'm not sure I can follow your logic of having smaller communities not being decentralized "at user level" whatever you mean by that. I am making a parallel to how email works. With my own domain I can configure my DNS to use various different email providers and move however I like. This is both decentralized and federated. I can also use someone else's domain like gmail.com but then I lose portability for ease of…

Well, I'm writing software[1] that enables the users to own their own data and still participate in the fediverse. I was trying to convey to you that just because it's not popular it does not mean it's not possible.

[1] See my bio about GoActivityPub.

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

#409

Post by jjangkke »

torben-friis wrote: post #14
jjangkke wrote: post #6

[flagged]

You can't be serious. I don't use neither X nor bluesky, but I did get an X account for a while so I could check the links in random news or conversations, and half the posts had unrelated Nazi messages just below. Not 'oh that's right wing so he's a Nazi' comments, I mean literal swastikas and kkk uniforms.

The algos show you only what you and your followers like or retweet

ive never seen any nazi stuff....so who are the people you are following or following you liking ?

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

#410

Post by itsmartapuntocm »

neilv wrote: post #198

> While the ATProto system has been criticized as overly complicated compared to the ActivityPub system that powers the Fediverse, it has one key feature that ActivityPub lacks: the ability to transfer servers while keeping all of your followers and posts. FWIW, it looks like Mastodon software has some features for moving servers, including bringing your followers, but not your posts: https://docs.joinmastodon.org/us…

Some implementations, like GoToSocial, do support importing posts from another instance.
Post reply on HN