Can you give an example? It sounds like you have something specific in mind.
But apparently she really did create an account, yesterday, and says to have been immediately banned, without posting anything: https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1873542021715243076
And this: https://x.com/clownworld_/status/1858194893249917377?s=46
And this: https://x.com/immeme0/status/1872482191869132932?s=46
Etc. They seem REALLY ban-happy over there.
The second is clearly an account attempting to get banned. Regardless of what you post, if you're actively trying to get banned, I don't care that much when you do.
The third is probably the most concerning, although he doesn't provide any specific evidence about what he actually posted, so must be taken with a grain of salt.
In general, I'm really against services banning you without clear reason or ability to challenge. See also gmail, X, amazon, etc. etc. In terms of "free speech" vs. "censorship", I'd like a healthy mix for my social media service of choice (whether that ends up being Bluesky or something else). I don't want people to be excluded simply for expressing an opinion. I do want people excluded if they are harassing others—or worse, obviously.
That said, if people whose entire personality is being anti-trans perceive Bluesky as ban-happy and aren’t interested in it, I see that as a win.
> That said, if people whose entire personality is being anti-trans
Are you talking about protecting women’s rights? That’s pro something, not anti something, right?
So speaking of bad faith… The only one I see acting in bad faith here is you?
Btw, you’re firmly doing the bad faith thing now, and were from the very start when you danced around the truth with language like “commonly held views and scientific facts”.