Frankly a good development - the foaming at the mouth culture warriors go to Truth Social and Bluesky in their own hugboxes and echo chambers and the people with shred of common sense and one of humor stay at Twitter.
That is irrelevant by itself. The statement is just good litmus test for someone on the left in the culture war - by their reaction you can see how they can tolerate dissenting opinions and how deep in the echo chamber they are.
In American culture. Or, to be more exact, in united state settler culture, as we don't know for sure how natives viewed thing. A lot of SA native still have three gender to this day ('girls' and 'boys' are considered neutral and use neutral pronoun until puberty) and it is possible that this cultural factoid stems from a very ancient branch.
And since they don't have 'miss kindergarten' weird hypersexualization of little girls that (imho) border on pedophilia, I'd say I prefer kids not to be gendered in my language.
Adding a label to a post written with the explicit intent to spark outrage isn't being "banned". It's just good moderation.
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.
The "end wokeness" account very much thrives on outrage, lies, and misinformation.
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.
... you want me to provide a singular source for decades of lying and misinformation? Honestly, eventually the media will cover something you know well very badly or even maliciously (or in my case, dozens of things), and if you aren't a fool you should extrapolate that realization to everything else they cover, even the things you don't know well. They cover it all very poorly.
I quote you: "most major news media these days". These days, or decades?
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.
They are openly caught in lies continuously and people like you deciding not to hold them accountable because "Oh there's someone worse on twitter, they're the best we have" is part of the downward spiral we are currently caught in.
OK examples. Here's one out of thousands: During the closing days of the 2008 presidential race, Sydney Schanberg, former New York Times editor, leading Vietnam War journalist, and pulitzer prize winner, published a very lengthy, detailed, and credible piece that strongly suggested that John McCain had played a leading role in abandoning American POWs in Vietnam and hiding their existence from the American public. This story, despite being of obvious interest to the public, was uniformly ignored by every major media outlet in America, conservative and liberal alike.
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.
> If you don't want Bluesky to hide anything for you, go to the moderation settings on your account and turn everything off.
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 ?!
They weren't banned. Their post will be hidden by default behind a warning (a "click here to see" sort of thing); users who disable such hiding will just see it without clicking.
"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:
>The "end wokeness" account very much thrives on outrage, lies, and misinformation
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.
Strictly speaking, Bluesky doesn't force you. It does set defaults though, and we know most people aren't going to change them.
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.
> Even showing you a "suggested posts" feed ("the algorithm") should be optional and you should be able to turn it off.
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.
Shouldn't that be up to those doing the engaging (and not to the platform)?
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?
> Shouldn't that be up to those doing the engaging (and not to the platform)?
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.
If you want to fraternize with the creative geniuses behind "Michelle Obama penis theory" you're welcome to go use 4chan instead. Sounds like exactly the sort of place you'd love.
If you want to censor online platforms' discourse, or to apply censoring defaults to what users see, you're welcome to go to North Korea. Sounds like exactly the sort of place you'd love.
Well, as said in the sibling comment, even for clinical sex it's not that simple. Intersex is a fact of life.
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.
Even sex isn't fully binary; there are people with other sex chromosome combinations than XX or XY. And people who, due apparently entirely to biology (endocrinology stuff, how their bodies react to hormones etc), develop different sexual characteristics than their XX or XY chromosome combo typically leads to.
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".
Right, and which particular "fact" was it? Somehow I doubt it's an actual biological "fact" but rather a conservative "alternative fact", which ignores actual biology
The the profiles post was blocked - and likely will be all its future content, so it was literally banned. That's true regardless of you cheer to censor the truth or not
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.
I don’t if know is X’s @endwokeness, an account built on culture war rage bait, is a reliable source. Until I see further evidence that this is what got them banned, I’ll remain skeptical.
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.
Clicked the link without looking (shame on me), did not realize X/twitter/whatever was trying to disable the back button.
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.
This is not what the word 'banned' means, though given that they also appear to be confused about what the word 'gender' means, perhaps their bafflement is unsurprising.
Ragebait, the -> true biological truth this account posted <- was unable to make anyone anger, like they intended. They should go back to Twitter, and talk on that echo chamber where mostly everyone thinks like this, the people who didn't think this way there, already left due to the horrible decisions of the new administration in charge.
I am shocked. It's remarkable for a system to recognize that the most obnoxious voices make everyone else leave. Usually, they favor "let's not do anything and hope nobody cares".
Twitter allows extremely left and right views and everything I'm between. Bluesky is clearly the progressive stronghold to cloister itself from anything toward the center or right
62 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 31.5 ms ] threadAnd since they don't have 'miss kindergarten' weird hypersexualization of little girls that (imho) border on pedophilia, I'd say I prefer kids not to be gendered in my language.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
It's censorship.
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.
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".
please tell us exactly what you mean by that. get real
male / female.
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.
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.