I.e. it's not really "weird", is my point.
If you want to suggest that moderation and censorship are the same—two concepts with obviously differing senses in English—take a stab at making the argument instead of just asserting it in, ironically, a cliche.
The protocol is ambivalent towards it, so if you seek hate, you could host your own. I'm very fine (happy even) with the bsky team not being invested in that side of history.
Everything has been reduced to “hate”, to the point that it actively muddies the waters wrt actual hatred.
Some people believe that whether you're a man or a woman is based on thoughts in your head, rather than the material biological reality of your sex. They also believe that these thoughts mean you can be neither woman or man, which they call 'non-binary'.
Of course to everyone else this is a rather absurd thing to believe. Like the healing power of crystals or some nonsense like that.
[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gender#Noun [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender#dictionary... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
Also, as the Wikipedia article you linked discusses, 'intersex' is not a type of sex additional to female and male. It's a word used to group various disorders of sexual development.
Anyone who looks at Levine and thinks something along the lines of wearing a dress, must be a woman rather than that is obviously a man in a dress has deeply sexist ideas about how women should present themselves.
You can label this as "transphobia" if you like but that's just a tacit acknowledgement that the "trans" belief system is built upon sexist principles.
What people really have a problem with here is that they are called out for the intolerance because it reflects upon them.
This quote from their article highlights the absurdity:
"Levine is the U.S. assistant secretary for health for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, where he serves proudly as the first man in that position to dress like a western cultural stereotype of a woman."
Really the only "intolerance" here is from those who can't stand their ideological beliefs being made fun of, and decide to retaliate via the platform's moderation system.
If that's all that's happening, the really bad part is contributing to the perception that Bluesky is just a left-Gab (and if that's what you want, there are perfectly good Mastodon cliques already).
There used to be a US-politics labeller, of value to non-Americans, but it seems to have fallen over.
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.
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.
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.
First, even if we give you the benefit of the doubt and say it is factual, you do not need to lie in order to spread hatred, or at the very least provoke/troll people. "But it's true" is a childish defense in that context. If you were being honest, you would defend the practice of provoking/trolling people regarding gender identity (rather than merely defending the generic concept of saying something factually true, which is akin to the classic "I'm not touching you" game of provocation). And to be clear: I am not arguing against that theoretical argument in this comment - I am just saying that you should make that argument, since clearly you believe it but are being oblique about it.
Secondarily (and I do mean secondarily - it's entirely subservient to the first point and basically just an exercise in argument): The statement isn't factual, since it's just disagreeing with a context in which a word is used. It's literally a semantic argument, which is always more or less subjective.
Would you still be making the claim that she is "spreading hatred"?
I would still say she was making a factual statement that she was censored for. As we have evidence that this person was a historical figure and not just some figment of fiction. Only those with a particular ideological belief, i.e. most Christians, think there's more to it.
Fortunately that's not what happened, and such ideologues are not in charge of imposing those beliefs on others via Bluesky's moderation system. But it's clear that those who assert that some men are women are imposing their beliefs. Which is exactly what Sall demonstrated.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/17/24298790/bluesky-moves-d...
This sounds more like an attack then a byproduct of a growth bump.
These looks like reasonable defaults - frankly I'm a bit delighted they are configurable. A lot of these are things most social platforms would outright ban without an opt-out. I think it makes sense to start medium-narrow and let users broaden it (not to mention it's kind to new users - though I understand that kindness is a bit dead in our culture currently, since it's been falsely accused of being mutually incompatible with having hard, real conversations). And I do get the pros and cons - I get the argument about starting broad and making the user narrow it down. But, specifically, I think "brutally censored" is pretty dramatic.
Where are you getting that from? Do you mean blocklists? Like, you are not required to use blocklists. They are not even the default; you have to affirmatively use them.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/x-twitter-elon-mus...
Idk if it's because HN is populated with engineers who can't wrap their head around a non-deterministic solution, but a team of humans with a set of goals are capable of dealing with a problem that doesn't have a concretely defined algorithm.
??? You can literally post porn on twitter. You could in 2021, too. Pretending it was censoring people seems asinine.
We're on a silicon valley forum my guy, it's as western as it gets before wrapping around and becoming east again!