Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

You know what they say, when you're explaining that you don't really wish death upon the CEO of the niche social network platform on which you depend, you're losing.

View on HN

That’s a good observation about position. For those curious, the original (and arguably representative) Bluesky user said:

> “I want to be extremely clear I was not making a death threat or inciting violence,” he told me, saying that he had sent 12 separate examples of other people posting the same Kirk image as a reaction meme. “I don’t wish death on Jay, I wish for her and her team to grow a conscience. I disagree with the decision and how it was handled. My account was taken down without any explanation for almost a full day in what can only be viewed as a retroactive ban.”

which is leaving out the full context, they specificly cited the alt-text of the image, not the image itself.

The email, verbatim read:

> A reply with an image; alt text reads:

> 'Charlie Kirk sitting in a white T-shirt that says "Freedom." A negative consequence follows!

[0]: https://bsky.app/profile/aliafonzy.blacksky.app/post/3m2jm7u...

Thank you for confirming it was in no way a death threat

I’m sure that it’s just some sort of mistake but it’s kind of funny that the alt text they cited in the email to him about the ban wasn’t what he wrote at all.

https://bsky.app/profile/aliafonzy.blacksky.app/post/3m2k7c7...

Still the whole premise of blue sky being decentralized was that when one server bans you you could pop over to another community that doesn't consider memes a death threat, so this is a good test of how centralized bluesky remains (very)

That part actually still works, it's just that BlueSky imposes a moderation list that can't be disabled (which to me is the problem) in their aggregator. In theory this is fine because you can run your own with different rules but alternative communities don't. It seems very unlike BlueSky's general "you can turn off content filters" ethos to do this, I wonder why they don't just have everyone default subscribed to their list.

I’d argue that people lose the moment they sign up for an account, deluding themselves into believing that the problem with the last nth iteration of the same thing isn’t them.

The format is the problem. The medium is the problem. Poorly moderated groups of anonymous people voidscreaming as some “this will be monetized once we hit critical mass” exercise is the problem.

I believe that eventually people will sort ourselves out into the masses who never really understand or accept that, and those of us who choose not to subject ourselves to something so obviously poisonous.

100% it doesn't make any sense to expect different behavior out of the same format just because you make slightly different promises about what the rules will be

Bluesky has been drama central since the beginning, consisting mostly of people who thought Twitter wasn't censoring enough (or censoring the wrong people), the free speech crowd came later and, well, tested the waters and found transphobic speech was in fact not free, and that despite distributed promises, the town wasn't big enough for the two parties to coexist

While I agree with you, I would hesitate to be throwing stones from the glass house that is Hacker News.

This place also suffers from some pretty severe systemic issues that are inherent to any site that delegates moderation responsibilities to ordinary users. Invariably, these tools get abused to silence people.

The amount of greyed out and dead posts in this very comments section is exhibit A, and it's a pattern I've seen repeated in pretty much all other sites like it.

Bluesky actually has a central contradiction in that:

1. It was founded by the free speech crowd. 2. It is funded by VCs and required to eventually make a profit, which implies one set of constraints on free speech. 3. Its main initial userbase was people who expected a completely different set of constraints on free speech.

I don't think this is a contradiction that can be resolved by Bluesky. Blacksky might manage it, but I think they will turn up new contradictions, and the high cost of running an alternative ATProto stack is a big impediment to resolving those.

>I’d argue that people lose the moment they sign up for an account, deluding themselves into believing that the problem with the last nth iteration of the same thing isn’t them.

Indeed. As you said, it's the people, not the technical details of the "protocol" or "platform". My "favorite" Mastadon example: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34748195>

I see your example as a positive in favor of mastodon over other social networks.

When the one responsible for running the site can not run it anymore, it effects everyone on that website.

Examples:

- Digg (killed by owners removing their own product)

- Myspace (killed by new ownership leaving site to rot)

- Google+ (killed by Google)

- Facebook (killed by enshitification)

- Tumblr (killed by new ownership's rules)

- Twitter (killed by unhinged new ownership)

But mastodon is actually decentralised by design and implementation.

Mastodon as a whole isn't a single website, but instead is a whole collection of groups each running on their own server that can interact with each other as if they were one large site.

So with mastodon: when a site runner loses their ability to keep a site running (e.g. your example), only the single mastodon server/group is affected, the users move to a different group, and the rest of mastodon keeps running as if nothing has changed (because in the grand scheme of things, nothing has).

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 deeply nihilistic & running away from clear amazing basically spiritual human value.

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; we are embodied creatures. I’ve found my mental health improving massively when I take a step back from the firehose of social media and focus instead projects where I can use my hands and spending time with people I can eat with and hug.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com