←back to thread

Bluesky is ushering in a pick-your-own algorithm era of social media

(www.newscientist.com)
190 points amichail | 3 comments | 20 Nov 24 12:59 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
hntempacct99 ◴[20 Nov 24 15:16 UTC] No.42194606[source]▶
From what I have seen using Bluesky this isn't true at all. It's brutally censored, even more than Twitter was in 2021. Or are there other relays and appviews I can use that aren't? Is there a comprehensive list of Bluesky infrastructure that isn't run by Bluesky themselves (excluding a PDS)? Or is it totally centralized for now?
replies(10): >>42194628 #>>42194642 #>>42194671 #>>42194682 #>>42194690 #>>42194767 #>>42194774 #>>42195031 #>>42195409 #>>42195473 #
nick_ ◴[20 Nov 24 15:19 UTC] No.42194628[source]▶
What brutal censorship have you observed?
replies(2): >>42194662 #>>42194761 #
throwaboutbsky5 ◴[20 Nov 24 15:32 UTC] No.42194761[source]▶
https://bsky.app/profile/sallgrover.bsky.social

https://x.com/salltweets/status/1857595757882188086

Sall Grover is the creator of a woman-only social app in Australia that was taken to court over that sex exclusivity. Posted a few controversial statements to test the atmosphere and this is the result.

replies(3): >>42194802 #>>42194959 #>>42195029 #
happytoexplain ◴[20 Nov 24 15:47 UTC] No.42194959[source]▶
This is just the common case where it's a thing one could express a morally honest opinion about, even if it's emotional or negative, but is instead expressed curtly for the purpose of encouraging hatred broadly. I.e. it's the exact definition of trolling (and specifically, group-hatred by intrinsic qualities like sexual feelings, race, etc, which is understandably the most commonly moderated type of trolling). I'm not going to go so far as to say that all platforms must moderate that type of content, but it is of course a decision that falls within the realm of reason for any given platform. So, it seems dishonest to spit on it as "censorship" (ever more, "brutal censorship"), assuming you are agreeing with the GP.
replies(1): >>42197214 #
1. plapplap ◴[20 Nov 24 19:21 UTC] No.42197214[source]▶
It's not hatred to point out that a man is a man. What a daft exaggeration.
replies(1): >>42199667 #
2. happytoexplain ◴[21 Nov 24 00:20 UTC] No.42199667[source]▶
I don't think it's an exaggeration, and I don't think it's daft - I think the point of the common quips of the general format "trans 'women' are men", without more context, are almost always (and obviously in this case) simple provocations, intended to disparage and humiliate, in addition to serving as slogans that implicitly support an unstated argument. However, we have no way of knowing which arguments they are supporting, aside from a broad and unnecessarily bitter rejection of the concept of people who feel mentally like a different gender from their biological gender.

So, purely as a random example: One of those unstated arguments is often the "don't let trans women into women's bathrooms" debate. I sympathize greatly with women who don't feel comfortable sharing a bathroom with trans women, and don't think anybody should be put through that (and I also sympathize with the trans woman's side of that problem, and have no good solution to offer to either side, but that's beside the point I'm making), but despite sharing that sympathy, I don't pretend to be unable to recognize hateful versions of that "sympathy" - that would be petty ideology.

replies(1): >>42202826 #
3. plapplap ◴[21 Nov 24 10:25 UTC] No.42202826[source]▶
But this is strong disagreement you are talking about, not hatred.

And if you look at the history of what Sall Grover has had to endure regarding this issue - being harassed, threatened, dragged through the legal system - it's very obvious why she strongly disagrees with the idea that some men are women, and why she is so very outspoken in drawing a line in the sand on this.