But why just verify? What non-evil is there that you achieve with that?
It gives those who're gonna have a field day with those cunts when they start lying, a legit target, and that it's not some asshat that is pretending to be ICE. I'm on bluesky and somewhat delighted they're going to have a presence. I'm gonna have fun ripping them new assholes.
Oh, just general nastiness that befits America's homegrown brownshirts. It won't be for them so much as for anyone else reading their posts.. You just get in front of the lies and call them all out.
But still: Verifying means you officially acknowledge their existence. And they are horrible pieces of shit; thereby acknowledging their existence should automatically include making the facts visible. There's no reason not to call evil evil.
EDIT: Also, your comment was well-written and I have no need to actually argue against you. So, do not worry. I do not completely agree with you, but my disagreement is not terribly strong either :)
The platform is always in charge of who's allowed to use it. They already ban people and censor certain types of speech. This is a discussion about where the line is, not if its been drawn at all.
Go and post about your plans to grab a few of your armed buddies and go terrorize, beat, and even kill some minorities and see if you’re allowed to keep your account.
That's not how any of this works. Bluesky isn't an agnostic protocol like http or a piece of paper. It's a private platform, with arbitrary rules. Arbitrary rules that apparently do not prohibit ice.
It means that a little more than it means they disagree with them.
ICE are masked jackboot thugs illegally deployed to our streets by a psychopathic rapist to punish people who don’t vote for him. If there is ever a time to resist tyranny….
“Welcome. Let’s see what you have to say” is not an appropriate reaction to their presence.
Yes it does. It means they are okay enough with them to not ban them.
Surely there are some things that warrant a ban on bluesky. There's some sort of line beyond which you are not welcome. We can infer from this verification that ice is on the safe side of the line.
So does that mean Dorsey is a nazbol since he agrees with both communists and fascists? There are neoliberals on bluesky as well, how does that affect our triangulation of his beliefs? I'm not saying you have to agree with how the company moderates its platform, but clearly as far as bluesky is concerned allowing someone to use the platform is not an endorsement of their views. It can't be, because they allow people with diametrically opposing ideologies to use their platform.
Allowing them on the platform doesn't mean a full endorsement of the belief. It means that he (or whoever makes the decision) finds the belief acceptable enough to platform.
There is likely some line which is too far, and not allowed on the platform. Perhaps "eating live babies"? "Kicking puppies"? Something that is so unacceptable, it would not be allowed. This argument is that ICE and Nazi stuff belongs on the far side. That as a platform owner, you can say "that's not allowed here".
Allowing one person to say "I think the NY Yankees are the best" and another to say "I think the NY mets are the best" on your platform (eg: website, newspaper, bulletin board) doesn't mean that you personally believe both. But if you let someone post "I think white people are best" and just leave that up, that's saying that's an acceptable message to say. Just harmless like talking about baseball.
This argument is some positions, like what ICE is doing, is outside the range of acceptable. The platform (a website in this case) should say they have to take that elsewhere.
I have zero disagreements with this comment. My read of the top level comment was pretty literal, which is a tendency I have that gets me into trouble sometimes.
Bsky users are mad for saying the truth. They'll find out soon enough when it gets bought by some billionaire. Then, after leaving twitter and bluesky, they go onto birdpoo or something and tell themselves "this time will be surely different!".
Yeah, this just allows people to know that their content is really from the US government. Not verifying them seems like a worse alternative for everyone.
It’s not about verification per se. Since anyone can create an account directly, no BlueSky accounts are necessarily reviewed by BlueSky. Someone could create an account for Nazi pedos who drink blood and you wouldn’t blame BlueSky for that immediately. But if BlueSky came along and said “hm, yes, you are verified” then they have in an explicit way endorsed the account’s ability to exist. Basically the account passed moderation. Since many consider ICE to be an illegally deployed terror force on American soil, it’s you know, a little disappointing to see anyone treat them as a legitimate entity on any level. A democratic president worth his salt will disband the organization on day 1 and sponsor legislation to prevent them ever coming back.
I have trouble with the word endorsed. It's not as if being verified does anything other than provide a guarantee that the people are who they're claiming to be.
Personally I think it's great that they are so willingly publicly verified. It will be useful evidence that their trials.
I understand what you are saying. Verification is just about identity - it’s not validation.
Except it’s about validation on one very basic level. I’ve seen the inside of large social media moderation operations and you are missing one thing. These companies will not verify an account for The Islamic State, no matter how readily they can prove that they are who they say they are. They will not just sit there as a neutral party and say Osama Bin Laden? Looks real to me! They will ban and block and log and report.
ICE are in open warfare against American civilians and BlueSky just said “yep your id checks out.” They could have said “we will not be a megaphone for a rogue agency waging war on Minneapolis.” As for gathering evidence to hang them with later… their BlueSky tweets are not going to add much to the video footage we have of them killing people in the streets.
I could never get used to that sort of app. Be it Twitter, bsky, or even mastodon. If I follow people, my feed gets so much content that I consider spam.
Say, there is a person that is awesome and occasionally posts interesting things. But also posts random spammy stuff, like "just took a shower. I feel so clean!". Why am I wasting my time reading that sort of content?? I think there are 0 people in the world from which I want to read 100% of their content. Maybe very very very few. So, it doesn't make much sense to follow people, and then waste hours scrolling content about which I don't care.
I could follow tags, but they still get so much spam and so I still have to scroll and scroll..
Are y'all me? I never did Twitter, tried blue sky, got followed by someone pretty famous, but I really couldn't give a fuck less about it. Like you said, I don't want to know someone's every thought and action. Shit just isn't important to me.
You can put your follows onto lists you can group by category on mastodon. My feed is literally my own posts and Technology Connections. If I want to see anyone else I follow I have to manually visit the lists.
I do the same on Lemmy. Smaller comms I'll subscribe to, but busy ones (esp meme ones) I just add to favourites so I can check them manually and I don't have an everlasting feed.
Hasn't these microblog services not just become an outlet for famous people i.e. actors, singers, models, politicians, influencers etc. and even government to post stuff? In some countries even the police use these platforms to communicate to the public even before using other outlets.
Yes, there are Nazis all over the world. That wasn't your initial point. You said that America is being filled up with Nazis. I dont like MAGA not Nazis, but I do have the cognition needed to understand that MAGA and Nazis aren't the general population in America. I don't know why you have the need to spread this fear and lies.
Yeah, you're right. Maybe we can go door to door and ask some questions to verify who is and who isn't a Nazi. Then, once satisfied, we can group them into camps for easier management - away from common society.
Mastodon is made of lots of instances, nobody wants to be the instance with ICE on it. If they make their own instance or the government makes their own, they can be defederated by whatever instances wish to.
That's the difference, you can kick Ice out of your federated servers. You can't do that with bsky.
At least I don't want to spend much of my brain power deciding what individuals to block. I prefer there's a moderator who thinks roughly the same way about things things as I do. It's better not to be overzealous with the moderation: I am okay with a little bit of manual curating of my feed, but the things most obviously unacceptable to me should be banned by the instance.
Also: If a lot of people see the messages of ICE, I am not really likely to ban them either, because I want to know what is going on in the world around me. But if I know they are being banned by a lot of people because whole largish instances are banning them, they no longer are goin on in my part of the world. At that point it becomes more of a choice to want to hear them.
I guess that's where you and I differ. I see it as somewhat of a downside, letting a single or a few individuals dictate what everyone on the instance should or shouldn't see. I much prefer individuals having the choice to block what they don't wish to see.
An instance can be federated over a single unity and then people wouldn't be able to access many other communities that were neutral/okay on that instance.
This is such a virtue signalling to me... "Oh no, instance XYZ has account PQR on it, for shame!" - well, you're still using the app, the platform, you're still seeing the content. Unless you block them, which you can also do on TT/BSky.
Defederation "blocks" that instance for all users. Not really the same thing as monolithic bsky or twitter. You are not even aware of the instances yours has defederated with.
Ye, ye, nothing says "freedom of speech" as much as collective punishment!
Especially now, with Fediverse being barely understood by its own users and those outside the bubble having no clue what any of that means. People signing up to random servers just to be able to get off of Reddit getting slapped with an instance ban will surely boost Fediverse numbers!
Ye, ye, nothing says "freedom of speech" as much as collective punishment!
Especially now, with Fediverse being barely understood by its own users and those outside the bubble having no clue what any of that means. People signing up to random servers just to be able to get off of Reddit getting slapped with an instance ban will surely boost Fediverse numbers!
Paradox of tolerance doesn't include collective punishment, mate. Especially considering the .world and .ml instances are the largest ones, to the point where they're listed on the Wiki article for Lemmy.
Just imagine - you seeing that Reddit is going to shit, wanting to change to something better, looking up Lemmy, seeing that one of these two instances being the largest, joining, and immediately being called a Nazi, or some such bullshit by an elitist prick.
You know we're talking about ICE, right? the literal evil paramilitary squad of a crumbling empire. The ones who kidnap children, the ones who break into homes and disappear people.
I could understand your being pissed off if it was some fucker getting cancelled for something unimportant.
But people died, people died. This ain't the same thing.
And no, it literally does. You don't want to turn into a nazi bar, you don't let Nazis in. If the owners let Nazis in, you don't go to the bar and you tell every other fucker to do the same.
This comment is such virtue signalling to me "oh no, I don't understand how federation works and so I'll invent a strawman argument so I can pretend to be clever, for shame!" - well, you're still not understanding the app, the platform, you're still inventing the strawman. Unless you bother to research even slightly them, which you can also do on the internet.
Unless you bother to research even slightly them, which you can also do on the internet.
Right, so you just don't want Fediverse to ever replace things like Reddit or Twitter? Remain within a margin of error in their user count? Got it. My bad for assuming we, the early adopters, were trying to get this thing off the ground and become an actual threat to the capitalist pigs.
In theory yes. In practice? Say ice gets on the big main instance (like 90% of the users does anyway, would be my guess). The admins on this big main instance will allow the ice account to exist. Now what? Everyone defed with the big main instance? It will blow up the entire fediverse or nothing will happen and the last 10% will sit in their small fedi silos being tankies and talk about how America is a pedo nazi state (sorry about that last rant but jesus christ everything turns political on Lemmy from the first comment on nearly every post).
Sorry if my comment came off like that. No, what I meant is that my experience with the comment sections on Lemmy generally is battle of who is a tankie, nazi, corrupt, pedos. Probably overgeneralization. And that the fediverse is so fragile that defeding with the biggest instances will end in Lemmy will die. I hope that I'm wrong.
Mastodon can have instancewide ban, I am pretty sure any instance which allowed ICE would get the whole instance banned, and with it all the users leaving to any other one
You mean Jack Dorsey? He left in 2024 and deleted his account. He still gave Trump and Musk a platform, though so I have no doubt he would have approved this if he still was with Bluesky today.
It's useful for them to have a presence because it helps drum up anger at them. Did you see the shit on twitter where the official twitter of DSHS posted a pic of a tropical paradise with the caption America after 100 million deportations? Notably nobody believes there are 100M undocumented immigrants or even 100M immigrants period. 100M is the number of non-white people in America.
They literally said America will be great after we implement the final solution to the brown people problem. Hard to beat them calling themselves nazis. I say let them speak. Let people hear their hate so nobody has any illusions about who we are up against.
Wellllll...
In principle verification is not in itself an endorsement by the platform
In principle platforms should verify government entities, given sufficent documentation
In practice, I don't fucking care, abolish ICE, fuck everyone who bows to them, platforms aren't obligated to be the mouthpieces of clearly fascist governments
I mean, you can't really have accounts, pretending to be the president of the US, making joke tweets, and having people believe them. In that sense, verification is reasonable.
But yeah, Bluesky shouldn't be letting these freaks anywhere near their platform
If the platforms are (or pretend to be) politically neutral, then that's what they should do - just make sure the accounts that are being created are what they're being purported to be.
As I said, that's bare minimum. Next comes a lot of risk mitigation. Some common sense risk mitigation.
Of course they don't its Trump, if there was even a sliver of a chance that he could get sued he would pass a law banning copyleft liscenses and retroactively applying it to himself
Its a fork. So its the codebase which they've modified so it's the technology of mastodon but not actually mastodon. Think of it as a drink that someone has put posion in. The drink itself is harmless and maybe even healthy and nutritious but the poison changes it entirely
There’s an entire howling void of unspeakable instances nobody will federate with, presumably sieg-heiling, shouting slurs and/or trading CSAM among themselves in the darkness. One more won’t change things.
"We" being individual mastodon admins who each choose if they think the server should be defederated or not? That sounds good.
As for bluesky, what they're doing makes sense for a global non-federated site. Allow anyone to make an account, and allow them to post as long as they don't break the rules. If a user doesn't like that organization they're free to block or mute them. Anything else and you're asking bluesky to draw an arbitrary line somewhere. If they forbid ICE from creating an account, which government entities are allowed? FBI? National Weather Service? FDA? POTUS? Supreme Court? Federal Reserve?
I would bet if you say bluesky should ban "problematic" accounts and asked 100 people which accounts should be banned, you'd get 100 completely different answers. Just use your own judgment and your own block button.
odd that their username is @icegov.bsky.social instead of @ice.gov... i guess nobody on their social media team knows how to configure a DNS record or create a .well-known textfile.
I seem to remember a mention of something like "blacksky" being a small instance that's technically on a different server or...however bluesky actually works. It was mentioned briefly in an article titled something to the effect of "The Myth of a Protocol" where they were going over all the ways the bluesky isn't actually a federated social media form in practice, even if it could technically be described as one.
That's probably not a different server. The ATproto allows users to use their website's URL as their handle by essentially adding a text file on their website to prove ownership, but their account is still hosted on the Bluesky servers.
If it's connected to the rest of BlueSky, all of its data to any other servers goes through that of BlueSky's. Even if user on private server A communicates with a used on private server B, the message is routed so that BlueSky's main moderation team can always affect it – they can block it or they could technically even add to it if they wanted to.
No other servers on BlueSky have that right. Except servers that are completely detached from all servers connected to that of BlueSky. And their separate network has their own central server, then.
It's the same fucking Billionaire, Jack Dorsey made/whatever Twitter, and then he made/whatever Bluesky.
This is the same fucking thing as the windows/mac switch from the 00s. If you want an alternative to fucking windows, linux exists and existed back then too. But it's the same, the masses want the corporate bullshit, just the "New and improved!" version becoming trendy.
Linux is barely becoming a viable everyday option now, switching to it in the 2000s was not gunna work for most people. Glad it’s picking up steam but c’mon.
Linux wasn't consumer friendly until Ubuntu, Mac was an obvious alternative for average consumers in the early 00s. These things only pick up traction when the average user finds value in it. It's literally about the lowest common detonator user. That's just how consumerism works.
Yeah, so since the user isn't more knowledgeable then they deserve to stick with the shitty standard instead of buying a fashion product and being elitists about it.
If they wanted to be elitists they could have "switched" to Linux.
The lives of people that care about the issues are spent switching services as previous ones enshitify themselves in order to get an extra buck and/or please the dear leader. I feel like I'm always switching some kind of service.
Seriously, I don't use Bluesky or Mastodon because microblogs aren't my thing since college, but I can see plainly why Bluesky is more appealing to the average person than Mastodon. Maybe Mastodon users could take notes and improve their platform instead of grandstanding in moments like these.
163 Comments
Zoldyck@lemmy.world · 182 pts · 239d
Just because an account got verified doesn't mean Bluesky agrees with them
Tuuktuuk@anarchist.nexus · 57 pts · 239d
Verify it, then put a warning along the lines of
"This is the official profile of a fascistic terrorist organization. Beware."
Yeah, that makes sense. But why just verify? What non-evil is there that you achieve with that?
foodandart@lemmy.zip · 51 pts · 239d
It gives those who're gonna have a field day with those cunts when they start lying, a legit target, and that it's not some asshat that is pretending to be ICE. I'm on bluesky and somewhat delighted they're going to have a presence. I'm gonna have fun ripping them new assholes.
lepinkainen@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 239d
What kind of zinger are you planning to drop that will make the intern running the ice account recoil and quit their job?
foodandart@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 239d
Oh, just general nastiness that befits America's homegrown brownshirts. It won't be for them so much as for anyone else reading their posts.. You just get in front of the lies and call them all out.
Natanael@infosec.pub · 33 pts · 239d
The verification doesn't work like on Twitter, it's just proving the identity, it's not some flag of prominence.
There's even multiple organizations who can issue verifications on bluesky, for example newspapers can act as verifiers of their own staff;
https://bsky.social/about/blog/04-21-2025-verification
Tuuktuuk@anarchist.nexus · -1 pts · 239d
I did understand that :)
But still: Verifying means you officially acknowledge their existence. And they are horrible pieces of shit; thereby acknowledging their existence should automatically include making the facts visible. There's no reason not to call evil evil.
EDIT: Also, your comment was well-written and I have no need to actually argue against you. So, do not worry. I do not completely agree with you, but my disagreement is not terribly strong either :)
Serinus@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 239d
When I'm showing people the kind of shit this administration posts as an argument against them, I want to know it's real.
And I don't want to have to be on Nazi Twitter to do that any more than I have to.
missingno@fedia.io · 20 pts · 239d
They shouldn't be allowed onto the platform at all. Don't verify them, ban them.
danc4498@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 239d
I’d rather the platform not be in charge of who’s allowed to use it. Yeah ICE sucks, but that’s not for the platform to decide.
If they break the rules of the platform, that’s a different story.
underisk@lemmy.ml · 12 pts · 239d
The platform is always in charge of who's allowed to use it. They already ban people and censor certain types of speech. This is a discussion about where the line is, not if its been drawn at all.
danc4498@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 239d
They ban people for actions they take outside the platform?
underisk@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 239d
Go and post about your plans to grab a few of your armed buddies and go terrorize, beat, and even kill some minorities and see if you’re allowed to keep your account.
jjjalljs@ttrpg.network · 6 pts · 239d
That's not how any of this works. Bluesky isn't an agnostic protocol like http or a piece of paper. It's a private platform, with arbitrary rules. Arbitrary rules that apparently do not prohibit ice.
scarabic@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 239d
It means that a little more than it means they disagree with them.
ICE are masked jackboot thugs illegally deployed to our streets by a psychopathic rapist to punish people who don’t vote for him. If there is ever a time to resist tyranny….
“Welcome. Let’s see what you have to say” is not an appropriate reaction to their presence.
MrSmith@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 238d
Who the fuck cares if "they" agree with them or not.
ICE is a fascist appendage and should not be allowed on any "public discourse" platform.
Deceptichum@quokk.au · 2 pts · 239d
jjjalljs@ttrpg.network · -1 pts · 239d
Yes it does. It means they are okay enough with them to not ban them.
Surely there are some things that warrant a ban on bluesky. There's some sort of line beyond which you are not welcome. We can infer from this verification that ice is on the safe side of the line.
ebolapie@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 239d
I'm sure there's at least one marxist that's verified on bsky, does that mean jack dorsey is a communist?
jjjalljs@ttrpg.network · 4 pts · 239d
It would mean that communism is acceptable to him. What's tripping you up here?
ebolapie@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 239d
So does that mean Dorsey is a nazbol since he agrees with both communists and fascists? There are neoliberals on bluesky as well, how does that affect our triangulation of his beliefs? I'm not saying you have to agree with how the company moderates its platform, but clearly as far as bluesky is concerned allowing someone to use the platform is not an endorsement of their views. It can't be, because they allow people with diametrically opposing ideologies to use their platform.
jjjalljs@ttrpg.network · 3 pts · 239d
Allowing them on the platform doesn't mean a full endorsement of the belief. It means that he (or whoever makes the decision) finds the belief acceptable enough to platform.
There is likely some line which is too far, and not allowed on the platform. Perhaps "eating live babies"? "Kicking puppies"? Something that is so unacceptable, it would not be allowed. This argument is that ICE and Nazi stuff belongs on the far side. That as a platform owner, you can say "that's not allowed here".
Allowing one person to say "I think the NY Yankees are the best" and another to say "I think the NY mets are the best" on your platform (eg: website, newspaper, bulletin board) doesn't mean that you personally believe both. But if you let someone post "I think white people are best" and just leave that up, that's saying that's an acceptable message to say. Just harmless like talking about baseball.
This argument is some positions, like what ICE is doing, is outside the range of acceptable. The platform (a website in this case) should say they have to take that elsewhere.
ebolapie@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 239d
I have zero disagreements with this comment. My read of the top level comment was pretty literal, which is a tendency I have that gets me into trouble sometimes.
SethTaylor@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 239d
Just a quick side-note: Dorsey is no longer in charge of Bluesky
Jay Graber is
ebolapie@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 239d
clearly my commitment to showing my entire ass online is easy for me to stick to
HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -8 pts · 239d
Narrator: in fact they did agree with them, for the money was green and did flow and in the end that was all that mattered to them
Mastodon was always the only real choice
llii@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 237d
Bsky users are mad for saying the truth. They'll find out soon enough when it gets bought by some billionaire. Then, after leaving twitter and bluesky, they go onto birdpoo or something and tell themselves "this time will be surely different!".
Saapas@piefed.zip · 97 pts · 239d
What's the issue with them being verified..?
BearGun@ttrpg.network · 69 pts · 239d
Yea i don't get it either, all it means is that they checked and it's run by actual ICE. It's not xitter, they don't get special privileges from it.
RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 238d
Agreed
I instantly know this really a treasonous post and I can downvote and ignore.
It saves me the step reading trying to decide if it is a parody account or something.
Ibaudia@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 239d
Yeah, this just allows people to know that their content is really from the US government. Not verifying them seems like a worse alternative for everyone.
scarabic@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 239d
It’s not about verification per se. Since anyone can create an account directly, no BlueSky accounts are necessarily reviewed by BlueSky. Someone could create an account for Nazi pedos who drink blood and you wouldn’t blame BlueSky for that immediately. But if BlueSky came along and said “hm, yes, you are verified” then they have in an explicit way endorsed the account’s ability to exist. Basically the account passed moderation. Since many consider ICE to be an illegally deployed terror force on American soil, it’s you know, a little disappointing to see anyone treat them as a legitimate entity on any level. A democratic president worth his salt will disband the organization on day 1 and sponsor legislation to prevent them ever coming back.
echodot@feddit.uk · 6 pts · 239d
I have trouble with the word endorsed. It's not as if being verified does anything other than provide a guarantee that the people are who they're claiming to be.
Personally I think it's great that they are so willingly publicly verified. It will be useful evidence that their trials.
scarabic@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 239d
I understand what you are saying. Verification is just about identity - it’s not validation.
Except it’s about validation on one very basic level. I’ve seen the inside of large social media moderation operations and you are missing one thing. These companies will not verify an account for The Islamic State, no matter how readily they can prove that they are who they say they are. They will not just sit there as a neutral party and say Osama Bin Laden? Looks real to me! They will ban and block and log and report.
ICE are in open warfare against American civilians and BlueSky just said “yep your id checks out.” They could have said “we will not be a megaphone for a rogue agency waging war on Minneapolis.” As for gathering evidence to hang them with later… their BlueSky tweets are not going to add much to the video footage we have of them killing people in the streets.
Deceptichum@quokk.au · -5 pts · 239d
Saapas@piefed.zip · 18 pts · 239d
No I mean what's the issue with them being verified
jjjalljs@ttrpg.network · 13 pts · 239d
Nazis and their allies should not have a platform.
When blueksy verifies them, it tells you that bluesky is aware of their presence on their (private, centralized) platform and accepts it.
Thus, the verification requires allowing them to have a platform.
Since they should not have a platform, they should not be verified.
Saapas@piefed.zip · 3 pts · 239d
So it's not the verification itself that's a problem, but rather the platforming
Deceptichum@quokk.au · 6 pts · 239d
jjjalljs@ttrpg.network · 5 pts · 239d
Yes. And verification requires platforming, so transitively they shouldn't be verified.
Serinus@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 239d
They have a platform. It's a podium in the white house. It's having thousands of thugs pillaging, and likely soon raping in your neighborhoods.
Knowing what they say is relevant.
Deceptichum@quokk.au · 5 pts · 239d
Serinus@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 239d
I don't wanna go to Twitter, ever, if I can help it.
Deceptichum@quokk.au · 3 pts · 239d
lepinkainen@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 239d
Block and move on.
I subscribe to a bunch of blocklists so I’m pretty sure I won’t be seeing their “content” anyway.
Deceptichum@quokk.au · 6 pts · 239d
lepinkainen@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 239d
Shadow banning works better than banning even in games
Let them in, put them in a room that nobody visits and let them rant there. Tell everyone that the room contains a crazy person.
architect@thelemmy.club · 1 pts · 239d
It’s the United States government. The platform is implied and given by the people of the United States.
Until that ends… I’m not sure banning them from everywhere but x will make sense?
Deceptichum@quokk.au · 2 pts · 239d
beSyl@slrpnk.net · 71 pts · 239d
I could never get used to that sort of app. Be it Twitter, bsky, or even mastodon. If I follow people, my feed gets so much content that I consider spam.
Say, there is a person that is awesome and occasionally posts interesting things. But also posts random spammy stuff, like "just took a shower. I feel so clean!". Why am I wasting my time reading that sort of content?? I think there are 0 people in the world from which I want to read 100% of their content. Maybe very very very few. So, it doesn't make much sense to follow people, and then waste hours scrolling content about which I don't care.
I could follow tags, but they still get so much spam and so I still have to scroll and scroll..
It is just not for me.
salacious_coaster@feddit.online · 7 pts · 239d
YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 239d
Are y'all me? I never did Twitter, tried blue sky, got followed by someone pretty famous, but I really couldn't give a fuck less about it. Like you said, I don't want to know someone's every thought and action. Shit just isn't important to me.
Serinus@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 239d
I think it's the whole parasocial relationship thing, where you think you're close friends with someone who doesn't know your name.
silentjohn@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 238d
I hate Twitter style platforms. I truly don't get it. I can see how it makes people addicted to the endless scroll and fomo though.
DakRalter@thelemmy.club · 1 pts · 238d
You can put your follows onto lists you can group by category on mastodon. My feed is literally my own posts and Technology Connections. If I want to see anyone else I follow I have to manually visit the lists.
I do the same on Lemmy. Smaller comms I'll subscribe to, but busy ones (esp meme ones) I just add to favourites so I can check them manually and I don't have an everlasting feed.
deczzz@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 238d
Hasn't these microblog services not just become an outlet for famous people i.e. actors, singers, models, politicians, influencers etc. and even government to post stuff? In some countries even the police use these platforms to communicate to the public even before using other outlets.
Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works · 68 pts · 239d
Its getting harder and harder to find a bar not full of Nazis
merc@sh.itjust.works · 34 pts · 239d
If you think about it, the USA is a Nazi bar.
prettybunnys@piefed.social · 1 pts · 238d
Just like Europe I guess?
deczzz@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 238d
It's not though
cv_octavio@piefed.ca · 2 pts · 238d
merc@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 238d
There are Nazis in America and rather than leaving the "bar", Americans stick around.
deczzz@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 238d
Yes, there are Nazis all over the world. That wasn't your initial point. You said that America is being filled up with Nazis. I dont like MAGA not Nazis, but I do have the cognition needed to understand that MAGA and Nazis aren't the general population in America. I don't know why you have the need to spread this fear and lies.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 238d
No I didn't.
MortUS@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 238d
Yeah, you're right. Maybe we can go door to door and ask some questions to verify who is and who isn't a Nazi. Then, once satisfied, we can group them into camps for easier management - away from common society.
Does that sound good so far?
Chais@sh.itjust.works · -7 pts · 239d
Host your own, connect with others that you like, block those you don't, filter your own bubble, live with the consequences.
Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca · 65 pts · 239d
ICE could easily make an account on Mastodon, would they get pissed if that happened too?
abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 76 pts · 239d
They could, however...
Mastodon is made of lots of instances, nobody wants to be the instance with ICE on it. If they make their own instance or the government makes their own, they can be defederated by whatever instances wish to.
That's the difference, you can kick Ice out of your federated servers. You can't do that with bsky.
Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca · 9 pts · 239d
Individuals could still block them, no?
Tuuktuuk@anarchist.nexus · 2 pts · 239d
At least I don't want to spend much of my brain power deciding what individuals to block. I prefer there's a moderator who thinks roughly the same way about things things as I do. It's better not to be overzealous with the moderation: I am okay with a little bit of manual curating of my feed, but the things most obviously unacceptable to me should be banned by the instance.
Also: If a lot of people see the messages of ICE, I am not really likely to ban them either, because I want to know what is going on in the world around me. But if I know they are being banned by a lot of people because whole largish instances are banning them, they no longer are goin on in my part of the world. At that point it becomes more of a choice to want to hear them.
Tja@programming.dev · 5 pts · 238d
"echo chamber as a service"
deczzz@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 238d
Lemmy is an echo chamber as a service. Way less diversity in opinions on there - yes, even across instances
Tuuktuuk@anarchist.nexus · 3 pts · 238d
That's why you pay attention when choosing what instance to be on.
Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 239d
I guess that's where you and I differ. I see it as somewhat of a downside, letting a single or a few individuals dictate what everyone on the instance should or shouldn't see. I much prefer individuals having the choice to block what they don't wish to see.
An instance can be federated over a single unity and then people wouldn't be able to access many other communities that were neutral/okay on that instance.
abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 239d
yes
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 239d
This is such a virtue signalling to me... "Oh no, instance XYZ has account PQR on it, for shame!" - well, you're still using the app, the platform, you're still seeing the content. Unless you block them, which you can also do on TT/BSky.
It's just weird to me.
ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social · 8 pts · 239d
Defederation "blocks" that instance for all users. Not really the same thing as monolithic bsky or twitter. You are not even aware of the instances yours has defederated with.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 238d
Ye, ye, nothing says "freedom of speech" as much as collective punishment!
Especially now, with Fediverse being barely understood by its own users and those outside the bubble having no clue what any of that means. People signing up to random servers just to be able to get off of Reddit getting slapped with an instance ban will surely boost Fediverse numbers!
ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social · 3 pts · 238d
Your goals and my goals are very different. I don't personally want millions of fediverse users, I'm happy with strong small communities.
MortUS@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 238d
Same, I sure hope Geocities lasts!
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 239d
Big difference here, admins can ban them, for everyone
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 238d
Ye, ye, nothing says "freedom of speech" as much as collective punishment!
Especially now, with Fediverse being barely understood by its own users and those outside the bubble having no clue what any of that means. People signing up to random servers just to be able to get off of Reddit getting slapped with an instance ban will surely boost Fediverse numbers!
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 238d
Search for this term "paradox of tolerance", you'll thank me
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · 0 pts · 238d
Paradox of tolerance doesn't include collective punishment, mate. Especially considering the
.worldand.mlinstances are the largest ones, to the point where they're listed on the Wiki article for Lemmy.Just imagine - you seeing that Reddit is going to shit, wanting to change to something better, looking up Lemmy, seeing that one of these two instances being the largest, joining, and immediately being called a Nazi, or some such bullshit by an elitist prick.
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 238d
You know we're talking about ICE, right? the literal evil paramilitary squad of a crumbling empire. The ones who kidnap children, the ones who break into homes and disappear people.
I could understand your being pissed off if it was some fucker getting cancelled for something unimportant.
But people died, people died. This ain't the same thing.
And no, it literally does. You don't want to turn into a nazi bar, you don't let Nazis in. If the owners let Nazis in, you don't go to the bar and you tell every other fucker to do the same.
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 238d
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 239d
This comment is such virtue signalling to me "oh no, I don't understand how federation works and so I'll invent a strawman argument so I can pretend to be clever, for shame!" - well, you're still not understanding the app, the platform, you're still inventing the strawman. Unless you bother to research even slightly them, which you can also do on the internet.
It's just weird to me.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 238d
Right, so you just don't want Fediverse to ever replace things like Reddit or Twitter? Remain within a margin of error in their user count? Got it. My bad for assuming we, the early adopters, were trying to get this thing off the ground and become an actual threat to the capitalist pigs.
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 239d
deczzz@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 238d
In theory yes. In practice? Say ice gets on the big main instance (like 90% of the users does anyway, would be my guess). The admins on this big main instance will allow the ice account to exist. Now what? Everyone defed with the big main instance? It will blow up the entire fediverse or nothing will happen and the last 10% will sit in their small fedi silos being tankies and talk about how America is a pedo nazi state (sorry about that last rant but jesus christ everything turns political on Lemmy from the first comment on nearly every post).
llii@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 237d
So, not aligning with ICE = tankie? Alrighty!
deczzz@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 236d
Sorry if my comment came off like that. No, what I meant is that my experience with the comment sections on Lemmy generally is battle of who is a tankie, nazi, corrupt, pedos. Probably overgeneralization. And that the fediverse is so fragile that defeding with the biggest instances will end in Lemmy will die. I hope that I'm wrong.
Mwa@thelemmy.club · 3 pts · 238d
i mean ICE can make their own instance,but most fediverse instances will most likely defederate.
irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 238d
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 14 pts · 239d
Mastodon can have instancewide ban, I am pretty sure any instance which allowed ICE would get the whole instance banned, and with it all the users leaving to any other one
CosmoNova@lemmy.world · 48 pts · 239d
You mean Jack Dorsey? He left in 2024 and deleted his account. He still gave Trump and Musk a platform, though so I have no doubt he would have approved this if he still was with Bluesky today.
sepi@piefed.social · 8 pts · 239d
Jack Dorsey is an example of how the dumbest man can fall upwards by being backstabby as fuck.
three@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 239d
If they can backstab their way to the top, I wouldn't call them dumb. I'm sure there's plenty of subtleness and tact wrapped up in that.
michaelmrose@lemmy.world · 42 pts · 239d
It's useful for them to have a presence because it helps drum up anger at them. Did you see the shit on twitter where the official twitter of DSHS posted a pic of a tropical paradise with the caption America after 100 million deportations? Notably nobody believes there are 100M undocumented immigrants or even 100M immigrants period. 100M is the number of non-white people in America.
They literally said America will be great after we implement the final solution to the brown people problem. Hard to beat them calling themselves nazis. I say let them speak. Let people hear their hate so nobody has any illusions about who we are up against.
irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 238d
michaelmrose@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 238d
I'm not convinced this is so I think it takes so little to make a comment I don't think one can equate one to the other
umbraroze@slrpnk.net · 35 pts · 238d
Wellllll... In principle verification is not in itself an endorsement by the platform
In principle platforms should verify government entities, given sufficent documentation
In practice, I don't fucking care, abolish ICE, fuck everyone who bows to them, platforms aren't obligated to be the mouthpieces of clearly fascist governments
wpb@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 238d
Why?
SpookyBogMonster@lemmy.ml · 15 pts · 238d
I mean, you can't really have accounts, pretending to be the president of the US, making joke tweets, and having people believe them. In that sense, verification is reasonable.
But yeah, Bluesky shouldn't be letting these freaks anywhere near their platform
Soup@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 238d
I say verify ‘em and then ban ‘em. “This is the real account, and it can really fuck off.”
umbraroze@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 238d
If the platforms are (or pretend to be) politically neutral, then that's what they should do - just make sure the accounts that are being created are what they're being purported to be.
As I said, that's bare minimum. Next comes a lot of risk mitigation. Some common sense risk mitigation.
Damarus@feddit.org · 31 pts · 239d
So ICE can't get an account on Mastodon?
vpol@feddit.uk · 58 pts · 239d
They can and should make their own instance. And we can defederate them.
stoy@lemmy.zip · 17 pts · 239d
Isn't Truth Social running Mastodon?
vpol@feddit.uk · 15 pts · 239d
I’ve read somewhere they originally took the Mastodon server codebase, but it’s been heavily modified since and not compatible with ActivityPub.
kittenzrulz123@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 239d
Isn't Mastadon AGPL? So legally if that was the case they would have to share sources (if Trump cared about the law)
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus · 13 pts · 239d
Yes, and they have "shared" it. After repeat requests, they sent a zip out, and it was posted here:
https://codeberg.org/TruthSocial/truth-social
Certainly out of date by now though.
vpol@feddit.uk · 6 pts · 239d
I doubt they care about the law.
kittenzrulz123@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 239d
Of course they don't its Trump, if there was even a sliver of a chance that he could get sued he would pass a law banning copyleft liscenses and retroactively applying it to himself
aarRJaay@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 239d
Its a fork. So its the codebase which they've modified so it's the technology of mastodon but not actually mastodon. Think of it as a drink that someone has put posion in. The drink itself is harmless and maybe even healthy and nutritious but the poison changes it entirely
Natanael@infosec.pub · 4 pts · 239d
Yes, but without federation
stoy@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 239d
Yes, that was my point
irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 238d
AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space · 15 pts · 239d
There’s an entire howling void of unspeakable instances nobody will federate with, presumably sieg-heiling, shouting slurs and/or trading CSAM among themselves in the darkness. One more won’t change things.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 239d
"We" being individual mastodon admins who each choose if they think the server should be defederated or not? That sounds good.
As for bluesky, what they're doing makes sense for a global non-federated site. Allow anyone to make an account, and allow them to post as long as they don't break the rules. If a user doesn't like that organization they're free to block or mute them. Anything else and you're asking bluesky to draw an arbitrary line somewhere. If they forbid ICE from creating an account, which government entities are allowed? FBI? National Weather Service? FDA? POTUS? Supreme Court? Federal Reserve?
I would bet if you say bluesky should ban "problematic" accounts and asked 100 people which accounts should be banned, you'd get 100 completely different answers. Just use your own judgment and your own block button.
jjjalljs@ttrpg.network · 7 pts · 239d
There's a difference between "they can publish a book" and "this specific publisher will publish their book"
MrSmith@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 238d
Not on any public-facing instances.
irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 238d
MrSmith@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 238d
Yes, but being on an instance is half the job. If 90% of other instances defederate from yours, you're kind of left shouting into the void.
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml · 22 pts · 239d
odd that their username is
@icegov.bsky.socialinstead of@ice.gov... i guess nobody on their social media team knows how to configure a DNS record or create a.well-knowntextfile.CallMeAnAI@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 239d
You clearly never worked .gov and understand the process to get a.gov ATO'ed much less a txt record done correctly.
irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 238d
CallMeAnAI@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 237d
You clearly have never worked for .gov. Not a technology problem. Process problem.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club · 1 pts · 239d
Has anyone been able to get bluesky to work on something other than their server?
PanGodofPanic@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 239d
I seem to remember a mention of something like "blacksky" being a small instance that's technically on a different server or...however bluesky actually works. It was mentioned briefly in an article titled something to the effect of "The Myth of a Protocol" where they were going over all the ways the bluesky isn't actually a federated social media form in practice, even if it could technically be described as one.
EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 239d
I don't know what the back end looks like, but I see accounts hosted from unique servers fairly frequently. My favorite is @yeag.gay
ilinamorato@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 239d
That's probably not a different server. The ATproto allows users to use their website's URL as their handle by essentially adding a text file on their website to prove ownership, but their account is still hosted on the Bluesky servers.
Tuuktuuk@anarchist.nexus · 1 pts · 239d
If it's connected to the rest of BlueSky, all of its data to any other servers goes through that of BlueSky's. Even if user on private server A communicates with a used on private server B, the message is routed so that BlueSky's main moderation team can always affect it – they can block it or they could technically even add to it if they wanted to.
No other servers on BlueSky have that right. Except servers that are completely detached from all servers connected to that of BlueSky. And their separate network has their own central server, then.
irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 238d
irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 238d
SethTaylor@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 239d
I can't find icegov on Bsky
Must already be on a moderation list I'm subscribed to
EDIT: Yep. It is.
TomMasz@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 239d
That account is not visible on Bluesky now.
foodandart@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 239d
What? Gone so soon?
ServantOfRa@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 28 pts · 239d
They were added to block lists if you subscribe to any of those.
hellfire103@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 239d
Which ones?
ServantOfRa@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 8 pts · 239d
Good question, probably this one: @skywatch.blue
hellfire103@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 239d
Thanks!
ServantOfRa@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 239d
NP :)
Natanael@infosec.pub · 4 pts · 239d
A gov accounts mute / block list, for example
SethTaylor@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 239d
For me it's the "Trump Enablers" moderation list that I'm subscribed to
Serinus@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 239d
That's actually a great solution. This way I can still verify firsthand what they've posted, if and only if I'm actually looking for it.
Skullgrid@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 238d
Soup@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 238d
Linux is barely becoming a viable everyday option now, switching to it in the 2000s was not gunna work for most people. Glad it’s picking up steam but c’mon.
irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 238d
Skullgrid@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 238d
"jack Dorsey "whatevered" twitter, then he "whatevered " blue sky.
MortUS@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 238d
Linux wasn't consumer friendly until Ubuntu, Mac was an obvious alternative for average consumers in the early 00s. These things only pick up traction when the average user finds value in it. It's literally about the lowest common detonator user. That's just how consumerism works.
Skullgrid@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 238d
Yeah, so since the user isn't more knowledgeable then they deserve to stick with the shitty standard instead of buying a fashion product and being elitists about it.
If they wanted to be elitists they could have "switched" to Linux.
SayJess@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 13 pts · 239d
All to further the regimes’ propaganda.
mckean@programming.dev · 12 pts · 238d
they could essentially create an account on mastodon and self verify. I guess the bad part is that bsky pro actively has to verify and they did.
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 238d
The moment the US Gov would have any instance on Mastodon, it would be blocked into oblivion.
Prior_Industry@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 238d
TBF Bluesky users would send this account to blocko land quickly via block lists etc
xeekei@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 238d
Mastodon.gov is probably already taken too
irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 238d
xeekei@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 234d
Makes sense.
Mrkawfee@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 238d
tbf Lemmy is just Reddit in its infancy.
thundermoose@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 237d
Not sure how a decentralized platform can be controlled by a single entity. Maybe lemmy.world, but not Lemmy itself.
Tier1BuildABear@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 238d
The lives of people that care about the issues are spent switching services as previous ones enshitify themselves in order to get an extra buck and/or please the dear leader. I feel like I'm always switching some kind of service.
Rooty@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 238d
This is your daily reminder to stop using platforms owned by billionaires.
zarkanian@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 238d
Which billionaires own Bluesky?
MortUS@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 238d
Excuse me, but this is a Mastodon astroturf thread. Just close your eyes and hate Bluesky.
mika_mika@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 237d
Seriously, I don't use Bluesky or Mastodon because microblogs aren't my thing since college, but I can see plainly why Bluesky is more appealing to the average person than Mastodon. Maybe Mastodon users could take notes and improve their platform instead of grandstanding in moments like these.
als@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 11 pts · 239d
It should say fediverse, not mastodon. Other than that, yeah, expecting a billionaire to suddenly care about people is a fool's errand
mienshao@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 239d
Genuinely, what billionaire? Who are you referring to?
Bluesky’s CEO is Jay Graber who also owns 40% of the company, the largest ownership share. She has a net worth of $5million.
So again, who is this ”billionaire” that you and everyone else in the comments is referring to?
SethTaylor@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 239d
Lots of people think Jack Dorsey owns Bluesky
qevlarr@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 239d
Such a fan of @Grutjes ♥️
CallMeAnAI@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 239d