Bluesky are openly welcoming, verifying and hosting accounts of prominent far right politicians.
-
@FediTips @gabboman @alexia honestly, fair. I will probably be moving away from Wafrn in that case provided they don't get rid of Bluesky integration. I only have one major account over there and it already has an equivalent on another instance that I find works quite well. Thanks for the insight, FediTips!
-
i mean thats why I blocked vance. And same reason I block fascists on fedi.
-
i mean thats why I blocked vance. And same reason I block fascists on fedi.
my issue is that feditips is missrepresenting things intentionaly.
-
my issue is that feditips is missrepresenting things intentionaly.
@gabboman @GroupNebula563 @alexia
I can assure you I'm not. I am terrified about what is going on.
I don't care what protocol is used as long as it makes federation accessible and controllable by anyone including very-low-cost grassroots instances that can communicate without relays.
-
It's not enough to block these yourself.
Fascists don't care about people who block them.
Fascists care about people who don't block them, because they can radicalise them into believing and spreading hateful lies about vulnerable minorities.
I've tried to give an example here: https://social.chinwag.org/@FediThing/112581263140051643
You've literally responded to nothing I've brought up.
Jd Vance is blocked by 30% of the users on Bluesky. He has no power there. On the fediverse there is a moderator on a bigger server who has blocked lgbtq/trans related hashtags and quotes a homophobe in their profile.
If you are trying to protect people from fascism, and hopefully homophobia I hope you are calling out fosstodon too. I didn't stumble on jd Vance on BS, but stumbled on them dismissing LGBTQ people here
-
You've literally responded to nothing I've brought up.
Jd Vance is blocked by 30% of the users on Bluesky. He has no power there. On the fediverse there is a moderator on a bigger server who has blocked lgbtq/trans related hashtags and quotes a homophobe in their profile.
If you are trying to protect people from fascism, and hopefully homophobia I hope you are calling out fosstodon too. I didn't stumble on jd Vance on BS, but stumbled on them dismissing LGBTQ people here
"Jd Vance is blocked by 30% of the users on Bluesky. He has no power there."
Having 70% of a platform to talk to is a tremendous amount of power. Even if it was only 10% that would still be millions of people to potentially radicalise.
It's the people who don't block him but listen to him that are the problem. He isn't speaking in good faith, he's trying to deceive people into doing bad things.
-
@ainmosni @stux @mastodonmigration
Trump's media org stole Mastodon's software code in order to build their own centralised platform.
I wouldn't personally count them as part of Mastodon.
@FediTips @stux @mastodonmigration I did say that, didn't I?
-
@FediTips @stux @mastodonmigration I did say that, didn't I?
I've edited my reply
-
I've edited my reply
@FediTips And yeah, I don't really consider them part of it myself, which is why I qualified it with "very pedantically".
-
p.s. It isn't enough to say that individuals can just block stuff they don't like.
Fascists don't care about people who block them, they only care about those who don't block them.
Fascists use platforms to try to radicalise anyone who will listen. Fascists spread hateful lies about vulnerable minorities, and if someone believes those lies they may follow the fascist and spread lies too.
I've tried to explain this in a way that hopefully anyone can relate to:
@FediTips Evergreen
-
p.p.s. No, Vance wasn't banned by Bluesky. That's why I included the link in the original post so you can see he isn't banned.
Bluesky had blocked the account briefly because they thought it was fake, but when they found out it was real they unblocked it, verified it and sent an email to Fox News saying that Vance was welcome on Bluesky.
A major difference with Twitter is the easily available block lists we can subscribe to.
-
@FediTips And yeah, I don't really consider them part of it myself, which is why I qualified it with "very pedantically".
Fair enough!
-
A major difference with Twitter is the easily available block lists we can subscribe to.
That's not enough, he has to be deplatformed because not everyone will block him:
https://social.growyourown.services/@FediTips/114710257356479091
-
@dideldum @FediTips @McWabbit
Get lost with that "tolerate the intolerant". How often do people have to point out the tolerance paradox? How often do people be reminded that right extremists don't care what your intentions are as long as they gain attention and power from it? Western societies atre past the time when we had enough freedom to discuss with those that have "different opinions". We've done that and look how well we dismantled them: they sit in every government.@t_robinart @FediTips @McWabbit Not everyone at Twitter is a Nazi. But those, who are attracted by ultra right ideology, will more likely join Twitter, if Vance or other fascists only post there.
If somebody like Vance now joins Bluesky, young politically disappointed people might join Bluesky, too. And there they are reachable for other opinions and ideas, which have no voice at Twitter.
There is nothing more dangerous then isolated bubbles in social media. -
@FediTips Evergreen
Exactly.
-
Bluesky are openly welcoming, verifying and hosting accounts of prominent far right politicians. Trump's VP Vance is now on Bluesky:
https://bsky.app/profile/jd-vance-1.bsky.social
"We welcome the Vice President to the conversation on Bluesky" (Bluesky in their email to Fox News)
More
: Bluesky is centralised, run by a for-profit corporation, its CEO has blockchain background, it is partly owned by VCs & Blockchain Capital.Bluesky are going down exactly the same Nazi Bar path as Twitter.
(via @mastodonmigration)
@FediTips @mastodonmigration
Seriously? -
@t_robinart @FediTips @McWabbit Not everyone at Twitter is a Nazi. But those, who are attracted by ultra right ideology, will more likely join Twitter, if Vance or other fascists only post there.
If somebody like Vance now joins Bluesky, young politically disappointed people might join Bluesky, too. And there they are reachable for other opinions and ideas, which have no voice at Twitter.
There is nothing more dangerous then isolated bubbles in social media.@dideldum @t_robinart @McWabbit
"And there they are reachable for other opinions and ideas, which have no voice at Twitter. "
No, it doesn't work like that.
When you give fascists a broader audience, you simply get more fascists.
All you do is normalise fascism in mainstream discourse, and people who would have previously stayed away from it suddenly think it's okay to do fascist things.
The only effective response to fascism is to make its audience and reach as small as possible.
-
@FediTips @mastodonmigration
Seriously?Yup, that's why I included the link so people could see for themselves.
If you do an internet search for "fox news bluesky vance" you'll find the article where Bluesky welcome him to the platform (I'm not going to link it).
-
It's vital that we drive fascists out of all mainstream discourse. They are not participating in good faith, they are participating in order to radicalise people to do acts of the worst kind of hatred and violence.
They don't care if individuals block them, because all they care about are those who don't block them. Those who don't block them can be radicalised into spreading hatred themselves, which radicalises even more people.
Fascism is a virus, it thrives on publicity.
@FediTips
I feel obligated to clarify, given that you have misrepresented my words in your reply.I did not, at any point, talk about individuals blocking fascists. I talked about instances banning the individual fascists, rather than cutting off entire instances, as a choice of moderation style. I also agree that defederation is a valid option for instances, perhaps due to moderation burden, or because the remote instance in question is irredeemable.
An instance banning Vance means, on that instance, no user is capable of being radicalised by Vance's account. This is the same as if an open-signup instance banned Vance's account upon registration. This is the same result as defederating the entire remote instance for the sole reason that Vance is on there, except that otherwise innocent users on the remote instance are not caught in the crossfire.
Many of those remote users will not be aware of Vance's presence on their instance (especially when that instance is Bluesky), and therefore cannot be considered Nazis by mere affiliation: they have not interacted with him. Those users remain on that instance, and defederating will do nothing to protect them if he attempts to radicalise them; however, a moderation team can monitor the users of that instance and continually assess the risks and whether defederating later is reasonable to them. What can, in fact, sometimes happen is the opposite: the Nazi gets bullied out of there, or -- as in the Nazi bar analogy -- the users notice the Nazi and leave of their own accord (at which point I'm sure the calculus will shift in favour of defederation); perhaps such users move to fedi in this scenario, having not been ostracised for reasons they would not otherwise have understood.
Finally:
Does your instance currently block mastodon.social? If not, as some instances have out of concerns for its moderation & size, then that is an example of what I was describing which you quoted and responded "No." to. -
@FediTips
I feel obligated to clarify, given that you have misrepresented my words in your reply.I did not, at any point, talk about individuals blocking fascists. I talked about instances banning the individual fascists, rather than cutting off entire instances, as a choice of moderation style. I also agree that defederation is a valid option for instances, perhaps due to moderation burden, or because the remote instance in question is irredeemable.
An instance banning Vance means, on that instance, no user is capable of being radicalised by Vance's account. This is the same as if an open-signup instance banned Vance's account upon registration. This is the same result as defederating the entire remote instance for the sole reason that Vance is on there, except that otherwise innocent users on the remote instance are not caught in the crossfire.
Many of those remote users will not be aware of Vance's presence on their instance (especially when that instance is Bluesky), and therefore cannot be considered Nazis by mere affiliation: they have not interacted with him. Those users remain on that instance, and defederating will do nothing to protect them if he attempts to radicalise them; however, a moderation team can monitor the users of that instance and continually assess the risks and whether defederating later is reasonable to them. What can, in fact, sometimes happen is the opposite: the Nazi gets bullied out of there, or -- as in the Nazi bar analogy -- the users notice the Nazi and leave of their own accord (at which point I'm sure the calculus will shift in favour of defederation); perhaps such users move to fedi in this scenario, having not been ostracised for reasons they would not otherwise have understood.
Finally:
Does your instance currently block mastodon.social? If not, as some instances have out of concerns for its moderation & size, then that is an example of what I was describing which you quoted and responded "No." to.No instance should be hosting a fascist who has masked thugs literally kidnapping people off the streets without due process.
Any instance that hosts such a person is itself supporting fascism, and should be shunned by everyone. Admins should defederate it, users on that instance should leave it.
The idea is to isolate not only fascists but those who tolerate and help fascism.
Fascism has to be resisted in every way possible, while such resistance is still possible.
