Banned from Bluesky Within 30s
twitter.com
twitter.com
Users are free to choose what labels are shown, available behind a warning, or hidden by going into the moderation settings of their accounts. If you like to replicate Twitter's anger and outrage cycle, you could disable just about any label you feel like, including scams and abuse.
Such a post is a canary in the goldmine for censorship.
And aren't those with controversial, or "controversial", or "non mainstream", opinions (or, in some cases, facts) routinely accused of just "wanting to stir shit" when they express them?
And isn't it a moot point, when the same would happen to others genuinely writing the same things? What about people wanting to talk and argue about precisely those things?
It is.
As mentioned in the thread your replying to users are able to change whatever moderation settings they want. They can even subscribe to 3rd party moderators of they want.
See how cheap and easy ad hominems are?
If you don't want Bluesky to hide anything for you, go to the moderation settings on your account and turn everything off. Except for illegal content like CSAM, moderation is optional; for accessing illegal content, you'll need to convince law makers to loosen up their child porn laws.
That is really the crux of what is going on here. This is the N-th example of someone being auto-banned from bluesky due to saying "there are only two sexes"; "excess death rates are up by 10%" or other non-permitted thoughts/speech.
... and the user only (?) has to change a moderation setting (?) and then all would (have been) well ?!
https://bsky.app/profile/realendwokeness.bsky.social
"This profile has been flagged: Content Blocked. Go back."
That's what you see if not logged in. There's no option to see the profile or post. Perhaps if someone logs in and changes the default it becomes visible, (or maybe not), but it's effectively banned.
Another user on the thread says they posted "Woke up today blessed that Trump is my president" and five minutes later:
https://bsky.app/profile/tankblades.bsky.social
"Not found. Account has been suspended."
That's far more aggressive than any other website.
Which is neither here, nor there. Would a similar post be allowed from another not tainted account?
And who is the guardian against "outrage, lies, and misinformation"?
A social media site should give you the option to follow who you want, block who you want, and that's it. Not force what's acceptable and what's not for you to see (except criminal stuff like CP). Advertisers should have absolutely no say in this, either.
Even showing you a "suggested posts" feed ("the algorithm") should be optional and you should be able to turn it off.
I guess Mastodon is better for you. I quite like Bluesky, its defaults appear to lead to civil behaviour. Given a choice between that and the kind of behaviour endwokeness prefers, I'll take civility, no question.
That fully depends on what instance the user is on, many Mastodon instances are quite happy to use the banhammer on anyone who strays from a desired narrative. You can run your own instance but will find that instance banned by those same ban-happy instances. The way many if not most instances are run unfortunately leads to a fractured universe of echo chambers.
> I quite like Bluesky, its defaults appear to lead to civil behaviour.
Only if by 'civil behaviour' you mean it limits dissent with the desired 'progressive' narrative. While it is quite possible to have a civil discussion on the fact that there are in fact only 2 sexes ('genders' is a term borrowed from linguistics, viz. 'gendered languages') such a discussion is not welcomed at BS nor on many Mastodon instances. I assume it is equally possible to have a civil discussion about the idea that there are 72 'genders' but such a discussion is not welcomed at most pre-X 'Twitter clones'. I don't think you'd be banned though, just lambasted and trolled. This is not based on experience since I do not have an account on any of these sites but on the idea that the pre-X crop of 'Twitter clones' was explicitly based on the premise that they did not censor or ban like Twitter did.
You can do that in Bluesky; it's one of two default feeds (the other is linear) but you can turn it off and add others.
> A social media site should give you the option to follow who you want, block who you want, and that's it.
Bluesky does; by default it'll hide porn, hate speech, probable spam, and a few other bits and pieces behind a "click to view" warning, but you can turn all that off.
As for the quoted X/Twitter account, it's plain obvious as day it's not playing in the trustworthy source of information camp.
Calling "most major news media" being misinforming is either a very bad take showing that the backstory of the team behind the media is not taken into account anymore (what is their intent, really? what's their pedigree?). Either a symptom that truth is already undistinguishable from falsehood (which is precisely the ultimate goal of such shit accounts that deserve nothing more than being shut down).
And that is the concerning point.
We have the same symptoms in Europe as you do in the USA. Only we have them about 5/10 years later. So we learn to look up to what's happening on your side, to detect and react faster than you did. Not sure it will be enough for us still. The disease is the same.
Example? Source?
> and people like you deciding not to hold them accountable
I'm sorry, what? :D
See also the uniform blackouts of some of the most important details surrounding many other events, such as: The USS Liberty. TWA flight 800. the hannibal directive. Bobby Kennedy's assassination. Flight MH17. The venona papers. The deaths of 6 of America's top political figures at the end of WW2 (W. Wilkie, G. Patton, H. Hopkins, H.D. White, L. Duggan, J Forrestal). Should I keep going?
The point is: regardless of what you think about any of these events, it's indisputable that many of the most relevant details have been uniformly ignored by every mainstream outlet.
The book "Encountering American Pravda" by Ron Unz will give you many more examples with abundant sources, if that's your thing.
It's censorship.
So even "there are only two biological sexes" -- while less untrue than "there are only two genders" -- is apparently not an entirely 100% "true biological fact".
sex: male / female. you're born with. other : ? gender : male / female. what you feel being. other : a teapot ? you're insane.
the type or person of what's people are attracted with : i don't give a f it does not matter.
As for gender it's a social construct so using a binary qualification makes no sense. One could say it's a spectrum but it doesn't even have to be this restrictive. Why force people to take the whole package of constructs and ethos from either one? What's wrong with having a beard and makeup? Is this insanity to you?
Of course this is not about identifying as object. Please don't use mediocre rhetoric like that.
please tell us exactly what you mean by that. get real
male / female.
That said, I still think the people that runs sites should be allowed to determine what type of speech is allowed on their platform. Private companies are not bound by the idea of freedom of speech.
People still do that? Wow.
It really makes me wonder how people think about "free" services, probably owned by a company/corporation/person (e.g. not the government), and get amused/angry/whatever that they can be moderated. Forgetting about if whatever they posted it "right" or "wrong", this reminds me of people I personally saw during covid yelling at WalMart workers that they had the "right" to be in walmart without a mask. Uh, no, its a company, and they can kick you out for any, or even no reason.
Again, not taking sides, just thinking.
No wonder Jack left the board.
Horrendous seeing cheering on censorship.
For folks who want to pick fights, there still seem to be plenty of options.
EndWokeness can keep their dumpster fire burning, if they want to stand up a Personal Data Server or get someone else to. They'll also need one of the third party clients to post to it. It's all doable.