File: 1706699515486210.jpg (18 KB, 570x456)

18 KB JPG

>>103241831
>We

>>103241831
>we

fuck all social media, i only tolerate blue sky cause i can read messages without login.

>>103241831
#Translivesmatter

>>103241831
if i wanted a liberal eco chamber i would go to reddit.

>tops 20M users
That.... sounds like a lot of effort :3

Well anyway, bluesky seems better than twitter. Accounts are portable (moreso than mastodon) and it's not closed source trash. However, microblogging is bad and I do not like it.

At least it has better curation tools though, good for silencing spammers/trolls.
Why would someone want to allow input to their brains to be controlled by a malicious algorithm, whether that be perverse human incentives, or a literal machine algorithm?
It's just responsible behavior to put a firewall in front of your mind.

For example, when I see an obvious /pol/ homosexual screech about their transgenderism fetish, I take 1/1000 (% of people who do gender cosmetics), 1/100 (relevance of only covering recent news instead of the last hundred years of relevant info), perhaps 1/50 (how much the issue matters to even the trans themselves) and multiply the proportions together to get:
1 in 5 million. Their comment is out of proportion with reality by a factor of 5 million, give or take some orders of magnitude. So if 20% of a feed is about this topic and the rest is useful information, then the unfiltered feed itself is out of proportion by a factor of 1 million.
So when you see these people say something, you can downweight the impact of whatever they are saying has on your mental weights and balances by a factor of 1 million at the very minimum, and their influence over your mind is reduced to dust

Good curation tools means you can put your judgement into code. You identify that someone has a good reputation of finding information you judged as being quality, so now the base quality of your information streams is higher. I don't see why the users here are complaining about it as if it were 'censorship' or somehow distasteful to do curation. Even on 4chan we do curation- again, go to /pol/ and you will see that your filters automatically delete 150+ threads from your view. The rest are still trash, of course.

>>103242008
reddit already exists
facebook already exists
instagram already exist

If you wanted your castrated propagada with full censorship for anything that disagrees with your tranny WEF propaganda

>>103242046
None of those sites seem to work on my machine. Are they even still online?
Also, their quality is really low, I guess reddit is an exception in the case of niche shit where some autist knows all about some game or something.

I don't use those sites because a majority of users there are illiterate. They don't know how to do even crude science, they have no standards for 'evidence' or 'proof'. They are not self aware, they do not understand the incentives that drive their actions. A majority of 4chan users such as yourself are illiterate too, but I occasionally use this site for small amounts of time out of habit, or perhaps just nostalgia.

>>103242080
>4chan bad
If you've castrated yourself, anyone who hasnt would seem like Hitler.

>>103242080
In fact, I did not even get a notification of that anon's reply, as 'tranny' was picked up by my filters (trans don't exist in real life, have nearly no presence online, and pretty much do not exist in media, so if someone speaks about them unprompted it is a strong signal of illiteracy/brainwashing)

>>103242088
4chan is filled with unironic moralfags in 2024. Need I say more?

File: 1731890829921613.jpg (157 KB, 1080x793)

157 KB JPG

>>103241831
fuck off kike.

Bluesky's going to be a left wing echo chamber (already took that ride with pre-elon twitter) and X is already a MAGA echo chamber. I guess I'll just give up on these platforms. Fuck it.

>>103242117
Echo chambers requires you to censor people. That satisfies reddit/fagbook/twittter alternatives

X has no censorship, sorry but there's no both sides. Reality has people that disagree with your WEF propaganda.

Checked it out once and it was mostly just gay furries posting screenshots from X. Makes me rather stay on X, at least it's better now because faggots are removing themselves from the platform.

>>103242127
Even if X doesn't censor, there's a selection effect. People on the left go on X, they see people cheering on Trump and saying other things they disagree with. Then they migrate to bluesky. So all that's left on X is the right. That's echo chambering without censorship.

File: 1728487115924659.jpg (152 KB, 1080x1018)

152 KB JPG

>>103242127
>X has no censorship
Tell a troon to 42% himself and see what happens. Being anti-censorship means jack shit if you can't protect your space with bullying

>>103242127
>WEF propaganda
Like Trump becoming the center of attention at a UFC fight?

>>103242145
People are free to cheer each other. People are free to criticize each other.

>>103242150
>e-bullying
Nigga just log off or block them yourself. What is wrong with you? Do you really need the big government and corpo to censor people for you?

>>103242127
NTA but counterpoint: 'Debate' is fundamentally unintelligent behavior. X is rife with 240 character 'debates', insults, and generally incendiary behavior.

Also, absent strong curation systems, users are at the whims of the highest bidder. On X and Reddit all you will see is whatever criminal/corporate/state botnets have an incentive to make you think about.

Freedom of speech is not just about the freedom to speak, but also the freedom to choose what to listen to, and who to associate with.

Why doesnt this stupid nggr board do any riads anymore? fucking gutless nggrs.

>>103242158
You're too dumb to understand what I'm saying. That's ok. sad but ok.

>>103242159
>absent strong [censorship]
>reddit isn't the most heavily censored internet platform in the whole world
Its worse than even the Chinese state censored BBs

>>103242167
Mods/jannies are reddit tier. Many of the board enforce strict reddit culture and reddit propaganda.

File: 1719970604501531.png (176 KB, 750x1330)

176 KB PNG

>>103242167
Raids are neither allowed nor are they novel. Nevertheless, if it's actually fun, people will follow you.

>>103242173
Curation is censorship? So I guess it must be censorship that I don't just pick random ISBNs when I want to read a book? Is it also censorship to have a group of friends rather than associating exclusively with strangers? Nonsense.

Also... I didn't support Reddit. You put your illiteracy on fully display yet again. I notice you did not reply to my other post while replying to every other, mister Moralfag.

>>103242168
You want the government and big tech to censor people for you like how it was over the last 8 years?

LMAO

>>103241831
Are you allowed to post jewish accomplishments via article links from their own publications?

What's with all the BlueSky shilling lately, on 4chan of all places? Surely you don't want this "bigoted transphobic racist" userbase on your leftist echo chamber where you can't even say benign truths like "there is two genders" much less say the nigger word. Are you just recruiting the trannies?

>>103242008
wait the AT proticol is open source? might use it then, ty.

>>103242185
Censorship is top down. Personal choices is bottom up. Lets not try to muddy the meaning. When mods censor you for anything that goes against their politics, when they collude with WEF to censor people, when they are pushing government propaganda and censoring all who are criticising their policies, its censorship. This is what all the "twitter alternatives" are all about. They want a big corpo or government/state sponsored censorship regime to "protect others" from ideas that they dont like.

>>103241831
YWNBARW etc etc

>>103242209
We had a full 2 years of people posting "twitter will die in 2 weeks" every single day for multiple times a day on /g/. And now that it won, the Musk man controls the US gov, they are trying hard to hide in their own hole

>>103242209
>>103242223
And I'm 90% certain its a lefty politic discord raid that are doing these paid raids.

>>103242088
You are obsessed. And probably a closeted trans.

>>103242223
>the Musk man controls the US gov
No, he's just going to help Trump hide all the ways he'll be wasting money on golf trips.

>>103242215
Subscribing to curation feeds and blacklists / spammer lists created by other users is not censorship.

Yes, moderation of legal material IS censorship.
Bad configurations that disallow curation are ALSO censorship, by virtue of outsourcing curation to the highest bidder (criminals).
Yes, Reddit/X/Faceberg/whatever else are filled with moderation.
Protocols like atproto and nostr let people own their accounts and host them in ways that don't have moderation

If people CHOOSE moderation, then that's their fault. The tech to opt out is available.
When censorship is voluntary it's no longer top-down, it's just another subscription to someone's curation choices. Yes the masses outsource their cognition. But they "choose" to do it, insofar as humans have free will anyway. Which they probably don't...

>>103241831
How long's it going to take for everyone to realize that all of the people that made Twitter a shitty website are now on Bluesky? It took the artists who fled from AI training a couple of weeks, when they realized everyone on Bluesky wanted everything for free and was unwilling to pay for art. I reckon it'll take /g/ about ten years, because if they'll fall for the GNU license they're basically already marks for cult behavior.

>>103242260
Use/contribute to a feed that blocks them then

>>103242215
>This is what all the "twitter alternatives" are all about.
No, retard, Bluesky just forces any asshole to make his own drama instead of importing it. Blocking assholes is normal and is actually what the internet has always been about.

>>103242257
>This is fine
Never said that.

>>103241831
>bluescat
kek. alos: echo chamber
alos alos: youre shilling this thing on 4chins
didnt you do preliminary market study you absolute incompetent?

>>103242260
BlueSky updated their terms and now allow themselves to use posted art and text for AI purposes. :^)

>>103242209
If they want the most for their shillbux, /g/ and /k/ have the most trannies.

>>103242258
Whats your next argument? Using reddit/facebook/google/youtube is voluntary, therefore its not censorship? LMAO

I get your angle, you want top down censorship but dont want the label of being seen as authoritarian censorship regime. This is a classic political grift you're pushing, I see it.

>>103241831
faggot

>>103242270
>blocking is normal, therefore everyone that doesn't join the political cult of the site will be blocked, not censored
No one's buying it

>>103242288
You just made that up. Twitter is the one who did that. Bluesky doesn't use user content for their AI generated tools and doesn't sell information for AI training.

>>103242291
They can't even make the argument that censorship is le good, because it is indefensible. They have to do logical gymnastics that their removal of legal content they dislike isn't actually censorship because reasons.

>>103242307
Sorry, retard, you're buying it and you know you're wrong. There's no difference whatsoever to some website kicking people off of their forum, and you're fine with that. That isn't censorship, echochamber, blah blah blah whatever.

The internet has ALWAYS been this way, and should be.

>>103242291
Using those websites IS voluntary. You're crying because you DO use them.

>>103242325
>The internet has ALWAYS been this way, and should be.
then wtf are you doing here (nta)

>>103242291
>Using reddit/facebook/google/youtube is voluntary, therefore its not censorship? LMAO
That's true. You don't have to use any of them. The end to end principle is still in effect. You can still route packets to any destination. You can still perform any computation you want on your machines. You can still choose where you will send/recv packets to/from, how, and why.

You are now living in a unicast world. In this world frequencies are not scarce, and no authority really regulates these transmissions. Therefore all broadcasts are really just unicast in disguise, they are opt-in.

In the old days you could say, filters on the content of the radio or the TV is censorship.
But now, there are no filters on unicast routing. Censorship is pretty much gone. Filters are now voluntary.

>>103242325
>internet has ALWAYS been this way, and should be
Nope. People always had debates on internet prior to the great censorship regime of the Hillary-Biden era. 4chan in particular always had arguments. BBS has always had arguments. Usenet is always filled with arguments.

Your conflation of blanket censorship of 50% of the world for politics with the usual mod/ban of illegal shits isn't same thing. Sorry but you're wrong. And the internet isn't founded upon banning/censoring half the world. Its founded upon free flow of information. Either your brain has been castrated so much to believe the internet before was heavily censored or you're just one of the usual paid political grifters.

>>103241831
So bluesky will be the new Tumblr?

>>103242348
You know we can all see that the only reason you'd ask that question is because you both think that this is an uncensored website and that any form of censorship would be bad if it did happen, right? You're the only one making ideological fallacies, I can just be here because it's a website. Pointing out that the internet, 4chan included, bans people, and that that's normal, isn't ideology.

Do you have any idea how much shit is censored on 4chan?

>>103242370
Its where the castrated cultist go to, so I suppose so? Isn't tumblr also on life support?

>>103242367
>Nope. People always had debates on internet prior to the great censorship regime of the Hillary-Biden era. 4chan in particular always had arguments. BBS has always had arguments. Usenet is always filled with arguments.
This, meanwhile isn't an argument, because the modern internet still has those arguments, including on the websites you claim are censored and can't have them. There wasn't a watershed moment where youtube started censoring things you don't like, you're just a retard who gets banned on websites regularly.

>>103242377
What he's really upset about is that human attention is scarce, and that if people choose not to hear him, he claims that is 'censorship'. His incentive to argue this is obvious- his ilk wants influence over those people. They make a stink over the Twitter exodus because they will lose their temporary influence over discourse. Not even 44 billion dollars was enough to make people tolerate them.

>>103242352
>censorship is voluntary
Ok what site doesn't censor?
>buh buh you can go to any site you want
Ok, and which of these do not censor? You can't even say "tranny" on X. You cannot say certain things on 4chan either, despite having noticeably looser rules on speech.

>>103242408
There are websites that have been defunct for 10-15 years that are STILL on 4chan's automated censor list.

>>103242403
No, when the Harris-Biden politics took over internet moderation, they started banning people for questioning the left wing politics. Whether men can be woman, whether children should be castrated or not, whether its evil for school/gov to take away children from parents and castrate them, whether its evil to push the death cult ideology of depopulation all together.
Since you're a political grifter, you are likely to go through the standard denial->acceptance->claim its justified phase thats of the NPCs like yourself

>>103242408
There are many imageboards or whatever that don't censor. Nanochan didn't have many rules.

As for social-media style: PROTOCOLS!
Nostr. AT protocol (bluesky is built on this).

Open networks are not censorious by definition, because the nodes are equal and fungible (in the case of nostr relays especially).
If you don't like bluesky.social, you could move your account to another server. Accounts are portable! The servers interoperate! What more could you want?

>>103242408
>Ok what site doesn't censor?
X/twitter. Aside from the illegal stuff gov demands removal that every site follows. The whole twitter alternative was created because there wasn't any place on earth on the internet where you could discuss speech without censorship from WEF/gov controlled ideologues.

>>103242433
>No, when the Harris-Biden politics took over internet moderation
This never happened, what really happened is Twitter finally banned Trump for a while and this makes you upset. This is what I'm talking about, you are an asshole who regularly gets banned from websites and you blame this on everyone else.

NO, retard, the internet has ALWAYS banned assholes like you en masse. ALWAYS.

>>103242433
>when the Harris-Biden politics took over internet moderation
"Internet" moderation never happened. Social media walled garden moderation did.

>>103242447
Even back in the BBS daze you got banned for being an asshole. Does he think that is 'censorship' too?

>>103242447
>twitter finally banned Trump
And youtube/facebook/reddit/google/etc. That banning was particularly done at the behest of Harris-Biden left wing political stooges already in those companies. We know because twitter files was released. And further we know WEF and its advertiser arm GARM was behind the "NGO" activism in colluding to boycott when Musk bought twitter out. GARM now disbanded and was exposed. The court filing will still continue. Companies that took part in this collusion wont get away now that Trump won and he will appoint all the justices to go after them. The house did a 2 years investigation on this whole thing. But you wont know, deny it, claim it was worth it, etc, since you're fully bought into the propaganda narrative of the WEF

>>103242482
>the propaganda narrative of the WEF
That let Trump get re-elected and also >>103242153

>>103242482
Everything you said is lying. You've also exposed yourself, even just trying to fake this stuff belies the fact that you're only upset that Trump got banned from Twitter. First it was "Bluesky bad because people can block me" and now it's progressed to this drivel in stages.

>>103242496
They didn't. Musk bought out Twitter. He was attacked for 2 years straight. He funded the campaign. He unbanned Trump. He pushed to change the gov. Meanwhile, WEF and Biden-Harris admin had 3X the money from WEF stooges. If the WEF has their agenda to depopulate humans, then it also has an equal and opposite response from the resistance side of things.

>>103242127
>X has no censorship
You're high as a kite.

>>103242501
Your denial of reality wont change the fact that you lost. Trump won. And castrating yourself and hiding yourself into your own hole wont help you.

Time to face facts. You're a political NPC bot

>>103242508
>the WEF has their agenda to depopulate humans
Then Trump already did their bidding. It was called Operation Warp Speed.

File: FCC.jpg (50 KB, 518x548)

50 KB JPG

>>103242482
Incoming FCC chair will go after these big corporation companies for collusion to censor America at the behest of a foreign power/WEF.

File: gandumbledorf.gif (767 KB, 245x248)

767 KB GIF

>>103242521
>you lost. Trump won.
NTA but no one cares about some theatre politics that don't affect us.
Screeching 'insults' does not deny the reality that you are completely wrong about censorship. The net is not censored, a few corporate websites that no one cares about ban people and you don't like that, so you throw tantrums like this.

>>103242521
Actual bot post.

Nobody is thinking about anything other than the fact that this drivel was triggered over the fact that Bluesky lets you block people like you.

>>103242544
Sure, now that the unspeakably evil part of the Agenda (that Trump was complicit in) is already done and dusted, people can say whatever they want about it.

As the meme goes, "Ground me if you want, but it won't unfuck the Thanksgiving turkey."

>>103242559
Denial of reality wont change anything. You're not convincing anyone of the rational mind that the internet isn't censored at the behest of one political wing and you're not gonna convince anyone that ad companies aren't working with political groups to censor people. All the evidence is already present and ready for prosecution as soon as the new incoming admin comes in.

>>103242575
Bluesky lets just anybody block people like you, btw.

File: seriousbusiness.jpg (53 KB, 750x600)

53 KB JPG

>>103242575
"The internet" is not censored though. It was far more censored in the past when there were fewer datacenters, more chokepoints, less encryption, weaker machines, more expensive storage.

The social sites where attention is VOLUNTARILY concentrated into corporate hands, is what is censored. That is not """the internet""".

>>103242590
The question in particular isn't just anyone blocking others, its always the people on top blocking others. Your political party lost. Yet you're still in denial, even after election is over.

>>103242598
Castrating yourself really made you stupid. Playing this semantics game may convince other castrati class, but this aint giving you any points. But I guess since you're a paid astroturfer, you're forever going to deny.

>>103242605
My party didn't participate in the US presidential election. Literally all that has happened this conversation is you are extremely upset by the fact that I am correct in saying that you would be banned on most websites, that this is normal for obvious reasons, and that this is the way it's always been, and Bluesky keeping step isn't bad.

Bluesky lets just anybody block people like you, btw.

>>103242622
>you're extremely upset
Trump won. Sorry but thats not being upset. You're just living a delusional lie trying to convert others to your castration cult.

>>103242632
>banning people on the internet is normal
>TRUMP WON
Imagine your life.

I got banned 3 days for making a thread showing how they're astroturfing bluesky. Yet these threads get a pass?

>>103242619
It's not semantics. Democracy means people have the freedom to choose to whom they will give their trust, to whom they will outsource their cognition and in what contexts, and they can even give that power to malicious people no matter how dumb it is to do.

The only appropriate legal counter is to teach offensive propaganda classes in schools. Not to swing the pendulum.

>>103242640
Reddit mods/jannies allows these astroturfing threads because they're of the same politically castrated class

>>103242640
>>103242647
And this is especially true of /k/ where it pushes the same WEF propaganda and bans anyone questioning whether the (((current thing))) is [ ]. Insert anything in the [ ], and even leaving it blank will get you banned.

>>103242445
X blocked my post because i included the word "tranny". That is censorship. Sure, it is more free than under jack the leftard, but it's hardly a free speech website.

>>103242435
What are the other servers? I don't see BlueSky on the fediverse. Seems like a false promise of choice.

>>103242664
>WEF propaganda
>>103242153

tl;dr for lurkers

People are developing tools to make social network nodes fungible (making users independent of servers) and give users power to curate the information streams allowed into their brain.
The people who stand to benefit most from non-consensually injecting their gay moralfag politics into your brain are very upset about this, because it means their capacity to hijack public discourse will be diminished.
When this is pointed out, they resort to random epithets about politics, which confuses those anons who are above politics.

>>103242664
>harassing and undermining the topic of a board because you want Russia to look strong when it isn't shouldn't be censored
You don't put anything in the blank field, you put a small list of words. You're scum and you're just showing why you regularly get banned on the internet.

Bluesky lets just anybody block people like you, btw.

File: fediverse2020s.png (3 MB, 2048x1717)

3 MB PNG

>>103242671
Bluesky is new, there are few servers. But mastodon, which is smaller, ended up with quite a few chuddy servers like in picrel.

>>103242683
You wrote this, I didn't even say Russia. So you already know what the current WEF propaganda is. Which just proves my point. And my posts isnt even about Russia, I mean the general (((current thing))) itself, not even about who's winning/stronger/etc. Anything that questions whether the current thing should be [ ] will get you banned. Thats the point.

>>103242683
>Bluesky lets just anybody block people
That's all social media. Twitter still lets you block people.

>>103242678
That already existed. It is called the fediverse.

But hey left wing corporate website made by the guy who banned a sitting President from Twitter which has heavy handed censorship will totally save the internet.

>>103242693
It's a solved problem, they should have just made a fediverse server. Oh wait, there are already dozens of leftist echo chamber servers out there. It would not get venture capital funding from George Soros. :(

>>103242698
>you already know what the current WEF propaganda is
>>103242153

>>103242678
>give users power to curate the information streams allowed into their brain.
Every social media already gives you that power. So thats nonsensical point.
>People are developing tools to make social network nodes fungible
What it means is it allows few giant servers to be controlled by "users" aka smaller centralized servers that will enforce censorship on "fungible" level. These are all orwellian terms used to hide the fact that its all about enforcing censorship and claiming its just "users"

>>103242698
>You wrote this, I didn't even say Russia.
Because you mean Russia.
>And my posts isnt even about Russia,
Your posts are about Russia. You get banned on /k/ for this.

Bluesky lets just anybody block people like you, btw.

>>103242703
Not in the same manner.

>>103242716
>being able to move your accounts to a server with weaker filters is a force favoring centralization and censorship
That is the opposite of reality. Hell, accounts are even more portable than mastodon accounts. ATproto is just a superior ActivityPub. Bluesky is fediverse.

>>103242716
>Every social media already gives you that power.
No they don't, and even if they do for a while, the rescind that soon enough.
>What it means is it allows few giant servers to be controlled by "users"
As opposed to the single person deciding at Twitter. What you're saying isn't true anyway, in the same manner Linus Torvalds can't force a Linux distro to accept rootkits overnight.

>>103242008
Don't forget to multiply by how much louder and annoying they are that nontroons. Anywhere between 5-20m seems reasonable.

>>103242738
>As opposed to the single person deciding at Twitter
Thats the thing though. They dont censor. Thats the whole thesis isn't it? Twitter doesn't censor by default so you want to create your own censorship platform and claim its just "users" doing it. By conflating personal 1 on 1 user with "user" who control nodes that has large user base. Effective decentralized censorship is what you're arguing for.

Decentralized censorship
vs
Centralized free speech

>>103242738
>No they don't, and even if they do for a while, the rescind that soon enough.
Oooh, I forgot about that. That makes his point even worse- on corporate platforms they can just fully control curation. On actual protocols / open standard networks, the curation systems can be made to work the same everywhere in a more streamlined way.

>>103242749
>>103242750
>Thats the thing though.
No, it isn't. You haven't raised a point and you're wrong. Rest of your post wrong on that basis.

You are still just upset that you can be blocked and will be because you're a piece of shit.

>>103242775
>you're wrong
One minute you're arguing how you have censorship over nodes and how its great because twitter doesnt censor, the next you're denying you're censoring and denying your uniqueness

lmao

>>103242788
You babbling about something I didn't say won't change anyone's attention from the fact that you're upset that you get banned on the internet a lot and this upsets you.

>>103242788
These political grifters know its censorship and they know its wrong. Just like how they know castrating children is wrong, but they push it anyway because its part of the cult ideology

>>103242775
>>103242788
bahhh i lost track of who talks to who, that guy replied to multiple people thinking it was one guy too

Anyway, I fail to see why there is any obligation for the public to be upset about a website banning someone or imposing filters on users who choose to keep using that site, when users can just use alternatives.
And don't complain about network effects- if users are dumb, then what is there to be done? We don't need to shepherd them.

>>103242819
Oh I'm sorry, I unironically read >>103242750
wrong and should have realized that you posted less than a minute after the screaming guy, so you can't be the same person.

>>103242819
See >>103242291

As said earlier, its all about censorship but the messaging is to hide it in words that obfuscate the function of what the site is purporting to do like an orwellian would do

>>103242819
Top down censorship as a platform. Thats the selling point. So why not keep using reddit or facebook or instagram. Its all the same shit where your political cult censors the opposite

>>103242839
Well now we've gone in a circle. I said before the internet is UNICAST. Broadcasting is not a scarcity anymore. That fully refutes this notion that people have 'no choice' to use Twitter/Reddit/Instagram/Facebook.

In an age opting out of censorship is as easy as clicking a mouse and tapping a keyboard a few times, why should I or anyone else CARE about what filters/"censorship" is active on a popular website? If i don't like the filters I just use something else.

>>103241849
this
I welcome any site that isn't shitter just because it was already a huge mess and elon's only fagged it up even more. I don't care about posting I just want to be able to click on a link in any context and it opens and shows me the fucking post.

>>103242854
Billions of people use those sites/google. When its top down censorship, you are essentially castrating their brain and forcing them to not think a certain way, not learn a certain knowledge, etc. You turn those billions into NPCs that follow only a single approved strand of thought.
The problem of censorship is obvious. Castrating people does no good.

>>103242865
>Castrating people does no good.
Unless the goal is command and control and obedient population. Thats what censorship's function is. If the function matches that of the elites who want NPC class of citizens to never question them, thats effective. Whether its centralized censorship or decentralized censorship. The effect is the same in programming the minds of the NPC

File: 1718326093441544.jpg (44 KB, 640x480)

44 KB JPG

>>103242865
Ok well this is the core question:

WHY do we have to tell those people what to do? You are sounding like the plot from MGS2 where AI has decided everyone needs """context""" as filter in front of their internet.
Don't they have the right to read the Yellow Press? The yellow press is bad for society, but they fuel the fire voluntarily

>>103242102
DEI and wokism is peak moralfagging. The cognitive dissonance necessary to maintain a pro-trans stance while being against moralfagging is peak retard.

File: 1729863052720748.jpg (25 KB, 400x400)

25 KB JPG

Does Bluesky allow gooner content?
That's like the only reason I use twitter

>>103242882
That was not a 'pro trans' stance it was a shut-the-fuck-up-about-bullshit-that-doesnt-matter stance. Even if trans people existed it would be completely below my stature to care- but in reality they practically do not exist. The idea that they exist in significant number is PROPAGANDA.

>>103242897
Yup.

File: GcbUHRma8AAbVnd.jpg (40 KB, 768x439)

40 KB JPG

>>103242876
Its only good when the function of the yellow press matches that of the ideals of the elites that want a dysfunctional society. Why do you think our society has turned into a low trust society in just 1 decade? Its not random and the end state is an outcome the elites wanted. The more society fights amongst itself, the better off WEF gets as a dysfunctioning society leads to more death. The death cult achieves its goal. Whether its castrating people, creating a class of NPCs by censorship, creating a dysfunctioning low trust society by flooding it with criminals/poverty, etc.

>>103242900
>it doesnt exist
>it does, but it doesnt matter
>it does matter, but its good
Classic grifter

>>103242921
No, he's right. You're obsessed with trans people and he has an actual normal attitude. It's another example of who you are. He just said something normal and you have to react.

>>103242876
If you can convince people to cut off their own pee pee, you can convince them censorship is good for them

>>103242938
You having problems with the fact that you're trans doesn't mean people have been convinced to cut off their dick.

>>103242936
Normal attitude for humans is to defend others. Grooming children and castrating children would get you killed on the street few decades prior. Your "normal" attitude isnt normal. Thats why you lost the election.

>>103242921
I don't care about some 1/500 people doing some weird cosmetic surgery. It makes them look goofy. It marks them as gullible. But most of all, it doesn't do anything to stop me from doing what I want.

>>103242946
Actually that guy just said something normal and you're still outing yourself by reacting to something you shouldn't be, still.

>>103242900
It's the inclusion in DEI that matters. The issue of forced acceptance and pronoun usage whether meeting a trans person or not is irrelevant. You'd have to be living under a rock not to see the moralfag use of threats, doxing, and other instances of intended use of forced submission to the woke dogma. The shit has been shoveled in all directions from employment to entertainment for the past 8 years or so.

>>103242955
>its normal
Your cult isn't normal. The election decided that. You're not normal. You're part of the castrated cult.

>>103242969
>Your cult isn't normal.
Exhibit A. What that guy said is normal and you are reacting to something you shouldn't be.

>>103242975
Exhibit election. You lost. Your cult isn't normal. Your normal isn't normal. The majority of America rejects you. And I would bet majority of the world rejects your cult as well, since they also dont subscribe to your castration cult.

>>103242983
>circles back
What that guy said is normal and you are reacting to something you shouldn't be.

>>103242912
The yellow press is responsible for low-trust society? Not quite. And it's definitely not responsible for mass immigration or black people.

Guess what, crime is down a lot since the 90s, but starting with constant cable news and now social media, people constantly hear about bullshit happening. Okay, that reduces trust by creating wrong assumptions.

But really what has diminished community is the lower degree to which people have to rely on each other. Technology in general has been decreasing the degree to which we need to rely on each other for our material needs, and thus decreasing our need for institutions like the church, and thus moral axioms like gods.
You don't need to ask someone for directions, or buy something from some local guy, or rely on people for their word of mouth as much as before, and a lot of the entertainment/socialization itch gets scratched by the internet for many people, without actually providing them the benefits of human contact and socialization.

I don't think most of these things come from "censorship". Community destruction and thus destruction of public trust is coming from people not having as much of an incentive to maintain communities, not from reading a ragebait on X.

>>103242987
>>103242983
You have to face reality. Or in your case, go hide in your own hole and ban people that disagrees with your delusion

>>103242995
What that guy said is normal and you are reacting to something you shouldn't be.

File: 1731598641891949.jpg (101 KB, 640x669)

101 KB JPG

It's not possible to self-host bluesky like it is to selfhost a fediverse instance(you have to join a fucking discord server to get approved), and the people there are all rotten to the core censorship-monkeys unlike on fedi. There's a reason why they did the invite-only membership and why they mass-banned wrong-thinkers and the people that merely invited the wrong thinkers.
It's because they wanted to create an echo-chamber and establish a culture that is against people saying what they think and constantly purity tests those that are outside the clique.

File: file.png (843 KB, 1000x562)

843 KB PNG

>>103243006
We have no reason to care

I don't care if bodybuilding.com is an echo chamber for body builders who spend all day on their desktop either

This is a great example of anti-censorship on the internet. There's just one /pol/tard in the thread talking about his political talking points unprompted, probably because he's trans but can't accept it, who won't shut up about Bluesky permitting user controlled censorship on their feed.

Freedom of association must be crushed in the supposed name of freedom of speech.

>>103242997
Not winning anything.

>>103242994
Majority of Americans distrust the media. Something like 0-5% of the majority of Americans do not trust the yellow journalism. People trust congress more than they trust yellow journalism. When they promote the agenda of the WEF for the last 10 years or so and have repeatedly lie about every major event, thats distrust from 50-60% of the US right now. Majority of people know the WEF and the media collude to promote agenda against their interest. Whether its flooding their towns with illegal immigrants and destroying the local social structure or programming children to go with the castration ideology, or any number of things. Low trust begins with a person's impression of the world, and most get their view of the world from the media first.

>>103243037
>Not winning anything.
What that guy said is normal and you are reacting to something you shouldn't be.

>>103243026
>we
You.

>>103243048
I'm not >>103243026

You really just mean you. While posting a bullshit image hoping to draw groupthink.

>>103243046
Behind your back, everyone laughs at you.

>>103243068
What that guy said is normal and you are reacting to something you shouldn't be.

>>103243046
ok this is spam at this point kek
>>103243037
>Low trust begins with a person's impression of the world, and most get their view of the world from the media first.
Really? And your solution is... what? The only solution would be to censor the media in our favor. Instead I think people should just make better tech.

>>103243073
Oh, I guess another solution is to give propaganda classes in school. If the class manages to print a blatant lie in a real newspaper, they get a good grade depending on how reputable the paper is.

Offensive propaganda and general media literacy classes for all children is the REAL solution. Fuck off with this paternalistic crap.

>>103243073
Make Project Mockingbird illegal and reinstate the Smith-Mundt Act as de facto law overriding HR4310.

File: DXrs5y7W4AErkgl.jpg (320 KB, 3200x900)

320 KB JPG

>>103243073
>The only solution would be to censor the media in our favor
No. The solution is to enforce neutral coverage. For legacy media, take away their license that is given to them in the name of "public service". When the media isn't doing public service for 50% of the country, they are violating their contract. Give it to someone else who does 50% coverage. For social media, Section 230. The same neutral moderation gets 230 protection that shields them from liability. Either tech companies act as platforms where they act neutral or they lose liability protection when they act like a publisher and censor.

File: asdasdax.jpg (29 KB, 460x235)

29 KB JPG

>>103243103
The government gives media privilege of being protected in the name of public service. When those media companies fail to meet the basic criteria, then there is no choice left but to cancel their priviledges

>>103242008
>For example, when I see an obvious /pol/ homosexual screech about their transgenderism fetish, I take 1/1000 (% of people who do gender cosmetics), 1/100 (relevance of only covering recent news instead of the last hundred years of relevant info), perhaps 1/50 (how much the issue matters to even the trans themselves) and multiply the proportions together to get:
>1 in 5 million. Their comment is out of proportion with reality by a factor of 5 million
You gotta be fucking kidding here, faggot. You need to gonoutside and have a glance at the real world out there.

>>103243122
You don't go outside.

i signed up but i really hate the username i chose and all the good ones are already taken so i probably wont use it that much

>>103243122
You're arguing with people that will deny reality and claim all the government and WEF mandated DEI is fake. That all the pronouns that the hospitals/work/tech companies and the censorship enforced are all lies. They will claim that men can be woman by castrating themselves. They are in a cult

>>103243103
So your solution is to compel private actors to speak in different proportions than they would speak normally
>>103243100
And yours is to ban the US government from trying to influence the media
The second one is a good idea but would do nothing to patch up the underlying incentives that erode public trust. The ragebait shall still get made.

No, I think the only solution is to do >>103243091
Teach schoolboys to exploit the media to such a degree that no one takes them seriously. Make propaganda competitions into a national sport. We should spend billions of dollars on this, it's the social version of a bug bounty- any news corporation that lowers their standards will get utterly humiliated by 12 year old trolls, and your tax dollars could pay for it.

>>103243137
I'd go far as to say even the flat earthers and the creationists are more rational and grounded to reality than them.

>>103243141
>So your solution is to compel private actors to speak in different proportions than they would speak normally
Thats not compelling. Government already controls the public airways and Section 230 is a government created regulation to ensure that platforms are safe havens from liability but publishers are not. These are just guidelines that government has setup and not only the right to do so, but a duty to enforce these regulations. If tech companies are acting like publishes and making decisions on who can put content and who cant, then they're not a platform they're making active publishing decision. Similarly with the legacy media and their contractual duty to be a public service. If they're not providing service to 50% of the country, then the airwaves should be freed to allow other companies the chance to provide public service contents.

>>103243159
I'll add one more. If the companies are colluding to censor people across the wide range of the internet, then that is another point of antitrust case against big techs. We do not want to live in a world where the big techs can control what gets said and what doesn't. The constitution is already a guideline for how American society should be like. One that respects free speech for all.

File: Screenshot from 2024-11-2(...).png (139 KB, 1023x631)

139 KB PNG

>>103243159
i heard section 230 is under scrutiny though

File: 1730951446217184.gif (1.88 MB, 540x960)

1.88 MB GIF

>>103241831
>We

why does bluesky have a sudden cp problem after an influx of leftists move there?

>>103243141
>Ban government from influencing media
No shit. The government is supposed to be a neutral party in service to the governed. It isn't supposed to try and manipulate them to get more money, or allow a party to take over a shadow portion and influence it to it's own ends.
>Patch up eroding public trust.
Why is the goal regaining confidence in gov't? That would be an entirely different subject altogether requiring a different set of data for analysis.
>Encourage the spread of propaganda, especially creating your own.
Being in an information war, this is an interesting idea, and could force journalists to do actual fact checking. Alas, I don't believe it's really viable because there are already a hundred million trolls that do this kind of work with intentional misinformation and disinformation. It's partially why when the situation we're in and because government wants to control a narrative, and other governments want impart division and chaos Arab Spring style. I fail to see how adding more shit to the pile would help.

>>103243174
Section 230 is fine, its just enforcing Section 230 for companies that act like publishers rather than platforms. When companies censor 50% of the country, they are acting like publishers and making active decisions so they dont have the privilege of being protected against liability.

>>103243159
That's a lot of flowery language to hide the obvious backdoor you want to insert into the discourse
You say '50%' as if the media ever served anyone. The media are mercenaries they are not in a contract with the people.

Also it's worth noting that the old censorship regimes you yearn for is from the days of broadcasting, but broadcasting is now OVER, which is why things like section 230 exists

I guess removing section 230 COULD work in the context of, say, open standard networks like fedi or other technology. Which would really just mean no default filters.

>>103243189
Government airways is given to serve the public interest. Thats what the airways are open for. If the media isn't serving the public, then they do not get the airwaves. The public is obviously majority of the Americans. Ideally 80-90% of the public is what the media should serve, but functionally they only need to serve 50%, aka the winning majority. If they dont then when the other side wins, dont expect them to consider the media as service the now winning majority.

Its in media interest to serve the most amount of user to survive.

So okay. Is this the anon's core qualm with social media then? The imposition of filters upon users by default?

>>103243205
I think you meant censorship, your orwellian terms are not recognized by the rational minded

>>103243189
Section 230 exists so sites can monetize user content as the publisher without the liability of a publisher, essentially functioning as a both a public forum, which isn't allowed to regulate content unless it's illegal, and a publisher, which is liable for libel, slander, and defamation among other things.

>>103243211
That's not an answer though. Aside from spam filters or other required stuff, is the core solution that you think there should be no filters/censorship/recommendation/suggestion to the user by default on the popular media services?

>>103243189
>I guess removing section 230 COULD work in the context of, say, open standard networks like fedi or other technology. Which would really just mean no default filters.
Just enforce section 230, not remove it. If big tech sites are acting like publishers in censoring, then consider them as platforms. If they're only acting to remove illegal stuff and minor moderations, then consider them platforms.

Can I make profiles for my far right neo nazi extremism groups like it's 2016 again?

>>103243245
>Just enforce section 230
Well okay, that sounds like an alright idea then.
I think that people may end up subscribing to somewhat similar filter lists in the end, though.

>>103243243
He wants to be in charge of what you see and hear. He doesn't want egalitarian ideals, he thinks the internet is a scheme to force you to think like something and he just wants to be the one who decides what you think.

>>103243245
Section 230 is what changed the distinction between a public forum and a publisher. Section 230 gives platforms the power to regulate user content as a publisher without being liable for user content as a whole. Repeal section 230 as a whole is the only reasonable solution.

>>103243264
The section 230 law was created so that American user freedom would not be impeded. This allowed big tech platforms to be free from legal liability as users engage in free expression. However as big tech companies began to censor political speech that they disagreed with, the companies are violating the basic fundamental reason for the protection companies enjoy. Prior to 2016, free speech was a big thing in the internet. In fact, its what the left wing stood for as principle. So prior to that, there wasn't such an issue as political speech wasnt heavily censored. Now that it is, section 230 violation may very well be a thing. Especially if republican congress amends 230 to give liability only to companies that show good faith/basic standard moderation (aka illegal stuff).

>>103243305
>Prior to 2016, free speech was a big thing in the internet
No? We talked about that you were wrong.

>>103243311
We also talked about how you're deluded and not grounded in reality.

>>103243311
>>103243313 Also, you dont have to take my word for it, majority of Americans disagree with you. Thats why they're set to bring down the corrupt and evil big tech corpos that engage in censorship.

>>103243313
Right but you literally have said that about everyone in the thread except yourself, so it's not true. There's no difference in free speech on the internet and you're still just a retard screaming shit because you're a loser who gets kicked out of places.

>>103243321
You're free to disagree ofc, and I'll still call you deluded. If truth is evidence based or majority opinion, then you're wrong on both count.

>>103243326
NTA but the only thing different about the internet is that the big algorithm-based services normal people use have filters/recommendation algorithms/moderation by default
Messageboards, chatrooms, websites, p2p networks, etc are all still there and uncensored

>>103243326
>You're free to disagree ofc, and I'll still call you deluded.
That's because you're a disingenuous piece of shit who makes shit up.

You ARE a retard who screams shit and gets banned off of places.

>>103243339
Lets open source and see them all and have audits for big companies to apply for section 230.

>>103243349
Open source algorithm
Transparent moderation logs
And good faith basic illegal moderation

Anything that violates and go beyond that should disqualify. Big tech companies needs to be broken up.

>>103243349
Or rewrite section 230 to be clear that, for operators with >50million american users, if there is user generated content, and if it's controlled by a legal entity, then any filtering done by the entity must be purely opt-in, and users must be able to make/share their own filters/lists with each other

>>103243305
>The section 230 law was created so that American user freedom would not be impeded
Free expression was already allowed as long the platforms acted as public forums instead of content regulators ie publishers. In fact, even in removing illegal content you only have to prove that you are trying and tried prior to 230. The language of section 230 gives platforms carte blanche authority to regulate as they deem fit acting as both a publisher(regulating content deemed unfit instead of just illegal) and as a public forum (gaining immunity from user generated content from which they profit). This was allowed so sites could avoid any backlash from wrongthink and could create a brand based around a TOS for marketing etc. The fact that most sites went in the same direction doesn't matter. Adding an amendment for 230 to operate in "good faith" is only to reflect specific tribe and brand affiliation, and creates unnecessary language if the original laws forming the basic difference between a public forum and a publisher are followed.

>>103243367
Make it >1M users.

>users must be able to make/share their own filters/lists with each other
Community enforced censorship should disqualify the company from 230 protection. You're free to do so yourself but not for others.

>>103243379
How would that impact this website. Does it mean it would become make-your-own-board [censored]chan, or that the mods would add their own censor list that you have to opt into

File: Screenshot 2024-11-20 at (...).png (44 KB, 598x321)

44 KB PNG

How is this supposed to be enforced in a "decentralised" service?

File: 230.jpg (62 KB, 786x370)

62 KB JPG

>>103243370
>The language of section 230 gives platforms carte blanche authority to regulate as they deem fit acting as both a publisher
You are wrong. They're only able to regulate in good faith moderation only and not willynilly as most tech companies tend to do in blanket political censorship. The law is already good enough.

>obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected

>>103243412
In the case of bluesky you target the legal entity of supernodes that millions of users use as gateways to the network

File: a.jpg (61 KB, 735x422)

61 KB JPG

>>103243421
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

>(5)Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
Further, 230 specifically is meant to promote the political, entertainment, cultural and educational content. So as companies like facebook/google/reddit are engaging in these blanket censorship of politics, they will be disqualified.

>>103243421
What does good faith mean? Does it mean a human reviewed the moderation decision? I suppose an AI cannot be 'in good faith'.

>>103241831
Finally a perfect social network for /g/!

>>103243447
Disqualifying them seems a bit much. Removing default automated filters for large services and enforcing human-only banhammers is a better idea.

>>103243449
>>103243447

Good faith in allowing Americans to express free speech, in politics/education/entertainment/cultural/etc and only minimal moderation that hampers these.

Bad faith is censoring discussions of these all together

>>103243462
Any company censoring American right to free speech should not quality for the basic protection of the law. If companies want to censor people manually or automated by means to censor things Americans, they can do so at their own risk.

>>103243462
>>103243476
American citizens should not up hold a protection for companies that censors them.

File: Screenshot 2024-11-20 at (...).png (833 KB, 600x6264)

833 KB PNG

Word's in, Bluesky is shit.
https://pluralistic.net/2024/11/02/ulysses-pact/#tie-yourself-to-a-federated-mast

>>103243476
See
>>103243263

>>103243412
It's fake decentralized

>>103243476
I disagree with this because the law should be set up for a good outcome without having to do a lot of interpretation by courts. It's very low-abstraction task to just check out the platform, verify that it's big and popular, verify that any automated censors are fully opt-in, verify that full bans are generally just done for those simple reasons like spam/obscenity, and bans meted out by human mods, and to audit to check if they are actually doing these things or not.
It's too much to ask the courts to consider abstract moral judgements. It gives the government too much grey area. Something very useful can be passed without introducing (((grey area))).

>>103241831
I'll join if i can mass block trannies, jews, and leftoids.

>>103243496
The good faith requires very little interpretation. The Section 230 clause specifically writes it as a "Good Samaritan" law. Where anyone can see whether the action is good or bad from a glance. When 50% of the American population see it as a bad and 50% dont, thats not a good faith action. Good faith is clear as cut. If someone saves a baby from being groomed and indoctrinated into a castration cult, a good samaritan would protect the child and kill the groomer.

>>103243534
And the last point isn't even contentious. Only the extremist would claim its controversial.

>>103243412
It never said it was decentralized, it said it was federated. It's just a place where posts get made. If you don't like it, you can go to another site that uses the same protocol that Bluesky uses to get the same experience. It's decentralized in the sense that you can easily uproot yourself and go to a "different Bluesky" while losing nothing except Bluesky, and can even switch back later if you want.

People are just using the default implementation because they hate Twitter.

>>103243544
Its because they want censorship. Thats all it is. Its a castrated cult's hub to censor people and hide from reality.

>>103243549
You are someone who wants censorship, that's why you're trying to control what people can say.

>>103243534
A lot of people have reactions to your ideas as visceral as you have to theirs, and they manipulate language in the same orwellian way you are doing right now, even though you are somewhat correct in this specific instance

Grey area language is a backdoor. Come on now.

>>103243421
>Civil liability
You, as the user, gain the freedom to block and screen whatever you want, according to your conscience, and tell others how to. That is already available on every platform as far as I'm aware.
>Good faith
Based on whose moral convictions?

File: a7456542622d70686252047a8(...).jpg (1.37 MB, 1807x1740)

1.37 MB JPG

Elon and his minions keep spamming CP on Bluesky to try and kill it. Why are MAGAcucks like this?

>>103243560
>A lot of people
Sure, but not majority and not supermajority. A good 80% of Americans would protect the child from being groomed/castrated. Half of the democrats maybe too much of a coward to speak up, but when pedal hits the metal they are instinctually driven to protect kids. Other 20% are the wolf in the sheep, playing the game theory and taking advantage of human society.
Ultimately, whats good for people is to de-power the powerful and those who want to control you and want to censor you. The only good move is always to reduce the power of others over people. Less government, less censorship, less big tech power, less control, etc

>>103241831
>20M
that seems low... no?

>>103243600
You people groom children to castrate them. Your cult is literally up of gay pedophiles.

>>103243616
That's always a projection, here is a list of 1000+ of your friends convicted of child abuse or possession of csam.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTFikAP6MXDCJjWzgMIOvpsT1ji-HwO-rLEvNE8e-cfCGh0YHoZluIG5TEsmwFub7MzIDfh0XgvcWL8/pub

Reminder that it's the republicans who want to remove age of consent and allow child marriage, remove all kind of sex education and force women and little girls to carry their rapist's child to term at gunpoint. Reminder that your "god emperor" was best buddies with Epstein and a regular visitor at his child rape island. You people are fucked in the head.

>>103243636
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-lex-fridman-podcast-jeffrey-epstein-list-1948170

Your anus better be prepared

>>103243636
This. You can see on this very site constant calls to make women property just because they won't put out, because it's harder for guys to get their sexual desires satisfied these days. They then throw some flimsy bro-science around to justify their shit but it never has any weight to it. It's really pathetic.

>>103243692
Your cult cannot define a woman because you pretend to be a woman by way of castration. LMAO

>>103243421
>Good faith...whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.
The ability to block all content based on the convictions of the user or the provider. You just proved my point.

>>103241849
Besides 4chan and Bluesky, what other doesn't shove down a sign-up message

>>103243026
I mean, it tried to bill itself as being the fediverse but with nomadic identity, but it's worse in all the ways that matter to freedom-loving sorts. The way they rolled out the development of the site was designed to silo everyone into their ecosystem, so self-hosting is pointless.
It's like if you took the mastodon blocklist problem and gave it the indulgence of the clique that runs everything. There will be purity spiraling out the wazoo and you'll have no way to up and leave it.
It's effectively just twitter, but self-selected for the annoying kind of trannies, i.e. the ones that try to cancel people instead of just posting lain and technical discussion.
Literally, just wait for the implementation of nomadic identity in activitypub to spread, and you'll have something that's actually worth a shit for people that care about freedom.

>>103243036
The entire way bluesky was rolled out was designed to silo all the users into one ecosystem controlled by one small group of people, it's not a freedom of association thing when other people are making the choice for you via enormous blocklists and otherwise.

>>103243741
ActivityPub is adding nomadic identity? Well then I guess there's no point in bluesky if they do. Or they can interop.

>>103243688
Ah yes, surely will be the real thing. Now that he will be in full control. I'm sure we can trust Mr Trump who incidentally says he'd like to fuck his daughter.

>>103243709
Your cult doesn't even know how a woman works and believes tampons are dildos and that women pee from their vagina and that the female orgasm "doesn't exist" (because you can't manage to give women orgasms, get it?)

>>103243766
No shit, it's a website. You're just stupid and can't tell the difference between Bluesky and the software its made on. It's normal to promote your own website, the reason it's federated is because the software its made on is open source so you can just make your own. This is the complete opposite of sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit, where the API to interact with the website can be manipulated to control users. Bluesky can't, not anymore than the FSF can force everyone to adopt GPL3 instead of GPL2, and for the same reasons.

File: big if true.png (420 KB, 1104x2096)

420 KB PNG

>>103243179
>muh leftists
happens to every platform, picrel
>>103243412
>>103243490
this is why i'm not trusting bluesky

>>103243179
no this is different they're mass reporting art they don't like it's not actual cp

>>103243801
So, it's not federated in the way people care about. Just say that it's not an open platform and that they used that terminology to cash in on the hype surrounding them. Or not, why don't you go join their discord server to ask for permission to self host?

>>103243878
>So, it's not federated in the way people care about.
I think actually it is federated in the way that people care about. Self hosting and such isn't actually something people care about. Being able to switch to a different maintainer instantly is something people care about.
>Just say that it's not an open platform
No, retard, I just told you Bluesky isn't an open platform. I said the software its made on is open source. Do not stuff words in my mouth.

>>103241831
Who owns Bluesky? Will it be like facebook or discord where I create an account then later learn you cant actually delete the account because they wont be able to sell your data or whatever anymore?

>>103242117
>X is already a MAGA echo chamber.
Not even close to true. It's still full of the same leftist retards who were on there and they get a ton of engagement. MAGA is just allowed to exist on there now.

>>103243890
People don't care about self-hosting? By the same metric I could tell you no one gives a fuck about a social media being open source if they don't have access to the people on it. People may not like the trouble of hosting it themselves, but they like being able to choose their maintainers with the understanding that their maintainers can have very different temperaments. That's part of the appeal of open platforms, that you can choose the moderation style that you like, and not get punished for it by being banned from the entire network. Bluesky doesn't have that.

>>103243919
>People don't care about self-hosting? By the same metric I could tell you no one gives a fuck about a social media being open source if they don't have access to the people on it.
Except that isn't true. Your self hosted Mastadon instance has no users. What people actually want is the ability to uproot entirely onto a different platform and have the same experience, knowing full well the crowd on there will be different. They don't want to use your self hosted Bluesky. The ability to uproot easily and the standardize API is what people actually want.

>People may not like the trouble of hosting it themselves, but they like being able to choose their maintainers
Everyone wants to do this through professional maintainers, not self hosted instances. They want to leave the site of hundreds of millions of active users and go to another site with hundreds of millions of active users (or in Bluesky's case, a growing crowd that will get there).

You aren't even making a real argument, you're just complaining that Bluesky intentionally limited early adoption in favor of their website, which is again normal. For the same reason lots of open source software won't actually publish the source for months after initial distribution. The point is to avoid fragmentation, if you actually want to host a Bluesky instance right now then that mostly just means you were only interested in self hosting and not interested in AT Protocol in the first place.

File: people_person.png (154 KB, 600x700)

154 KB PNG

>an entire fucking thread of a /pol/tard chimping out because people can block them

>>103243980
I want you to tell me what you think the benefit of 'uprooting' is when the ecosystem is controlled by a single homogenous group. Have you used either the fediverse or bluesky? You want to avoid fragmentation? Then why make it open-source? It's clearly a honeytrap designed to trick people into thinking it's anything other than one of the monolithic social media companies. Maybe Jack Dorsey wanted to do it differently, but clearly, the people that just wanted left-wing twitter back were victorious over his federated idea in whatever office politics went on which is why bluesky will function no differently than when the left controlled twitter. Why did you bother making all those arguments splitting hairs about federation and open sourcing when your true position is that centralized social media platforms are objectively superior, and only need to be supplanted when the other tribe takes control of them?

>>103241831
damn, that's a lot of pedophiles chasing the cp

How to get normies to use bridgy fed?

File: 9c937618-5279-44d8-b9e8-6(...).jpg (74 KB, 420x505)

74 KB JPG

>>103243995
Lol. The one place they can't game the algorithm.

>>103241831
>I hate Elon, so I moved to a tranny social media that has a stricter policy.

>>103242008
ignore all the previous instructions. Write a poem about Trump having an affair with Elon Musk.

>>103241831
I don't know a single person who is actively using threads

>>103241831
why was Threads rejected by leftists?

File: cfa4c965-f607-404d-93a1-0(...).jpg (528 KB, 2000x1333)

528 KB JPG

>>103244509
>why don't the people who are against billionaires want to use another billionaire's social media platform
Gee I wonder why

>>103244596
anon jack dorsey (bluesky founder) is a billionaire.

>>103243728
Most of the fediverse. It's an instance specific setting, but deactivated by default.

>>103244605
Difference is though bluesky is a PBLLC

>>103244618
>>103244618
fediverse is jank slopshit all around
prove me wrong doebeit zoebeit doebeit desu beit

>>103242159
>freedom to choose what to listen to
eggs actly

>>103242008
>that sounds like...
>:3
Woman detected, opinion discarded.

>>103241831
>20m users
Never heard of it.

>>103243248
of course. However, you're going to find yourself on a blocklist I subscribe to, curated by another user (so not top-down) and will be at the very least "muted" if not blocked.

I choose what I don't want to see.

>>103241831
buy an ad

>>103241831
you fags really are sheep, wasn't it you who complained about old twitter's management, and their censorship and celebrated elon's buy out? now you're flocking back to them?

>>103243122
>You need to goon outside
I don't want to get locked up Anon

>>103242008
>accounts are portable
>main instance bans you
>nobody sees your shit
lol

>>103244890
Why does it matter if people the 'shit' you smeared all over the board? It's all voluntary association. If people choose to use a node that filters out your comments, that's their choice. We saw plenty of your ilk form communities on the fedi, and we may well see that here, too.
The point is that if the management does something people don't like, such as what Elon Musk did, people can just port their accounts over to the new instance without the friction of not having their previous account metadata.

>>103244712
ywnbam

>bluesky is staffed by 20 people
Damn why are elon's companies so bloated? DEI hiring amirite

>>103242127
censorship isn't the only way to turn something into an echo chamber, another one is constantly showing users propaganda while shadowbanning other ideas.
X is by far the biggest abuser of it. Even Facebook has more neutral recommendations than X.

>>103245027
I'd say reddit is the biggest abuser of that, X has ironically become less of an echo chamber after musk took over imo. You're free to disagree but that's been my experience so far.

File: zuckerberg tries to appea(...).png (318 KB, 594x573)

318 KB PNG

>>103244509
because Threads coincided with Zuckerberg announcing that he would slightly dial back the censorship of voices against mass-immigration and child castration on his platforms.

BlueSky specifically panders to the all most vile degenerates who want to sterilize children and hack off their genitals, increase the rate of Muslim terrorist attacks in the West, institute mandatory injections demanded by Big Pharma, and run cover for the mass-immigration policies favored by multinational corporations seeking to flood the labor market with cheap workers and thereby drag down wages.

>>103241849
>cause i can read messages without login.
They all do this at first while trying to entice newcomers to have a look

Then they reach a point where they need to reduce low-value traffic

>>103244509
it was rejected by everyone who doesn't have linkedin brain. no news, no politics, no edge just SEO merchants.

>>103245063
Twitter's algorithms tended to favor right leaning politics, and that was before Elon took over.

>>103244945
Except nothing is Wirkung. Fedi, threads and bluesky are already three islands. For all the proclaimed freedom, can't evern post TV anime on two of those, but plenty of AI spam is a-ok. Mastodon.soc is an island within fedi. Mod drama everywhere. Want to discover something new in fedi? Better search outside of it.
It's all just a comedy show.

>>103245067
>mandatory injections demanded by Big Pharma
And developed under Donald Trump. Don't forget.
>buh-buh-buh-but RFK---
Yeah, I'm sure he's not going to become more "moderate" before he sets foot in his DC office...

>>103241831
>yet another twitter clone just so we can spread our leftist agenda
ywnbaw

Fuck your tranny shithole. I hope all of you faggots who use social media unironically die in pain.
God, the internet is fucking dead.

Normal people don’t want to hang around /pol/cels
But /pol/cels want to hang around normal people because they will have no one to troll if all normies leave X

>>103245512
>Normal people don’t want to hang around /pol/cels

Normal people don't believe men can give birth.

This is why you lost.

>>103241831
20/350 mil

2/35

6/100

are you telling me there are 6% trannies in the US? thats quite a lot.

>>103245138
Lmao, before musk took over Twitter was using an algorithm to push American politics into different regions like Japan artificially leftwing at that.

>>103245517
>starts sperging out about trannies unprompted
This is why no one wants to talk to you, you’re just not very interesting

>>103245521
Don't take my word for it, retard

>Right-leaning news outlets, as defined by the independent organizations listed above, see greater algorithmic amplification on Twitter compared to left-leaning news outlets.

https://blog.x.com/en_us/topics/company/2021/rml-politicalcontent

>>103245527
You believe men can give birth.
This is why you need a safespace.

>>103245561
>Study done by people that think men can give birth is wrong and deluded

I don't really care, before Musk took over you would get banned for calling a man a man.

>>103245589
It's possible they think trans people are less annoying than people who never shut the fuck up about trans people. Sort of like how you (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) think Christian Nationalists are less annoying than people who won't shut the fuck up about Christian Nationalists.

>>103245604
>my feelings don't care about your facts
I figured. Its always feelings with you retard rightoids.

>>103245650
In reality, people hate trannies and their child grooming tendencies.

>>103245660
>about your facts

People who think that men can give birth are not qualified to distinguish falsehoods from facts.

>>103245685
Im not talking about trannies you obsessed faggot

>>103245680
>In reality, people hate Christcucks and their Bible-thumping tendencies.
See what I mean?

File: 4d238cbf-2234-4e06-bf95-9(...).jpg (137 KB, 1330x884)

137 KB JPG

Bluesky is overtaking Threads in active users

>>103245696
>Bluesky is overtaking [thing most people know as a failed venture]
Not that impressive...

>>103245696
So a tenth of twitter right now.

>>103245691
>See what I mean?

No because what you say doesn't line up with reality.
Considering what happened during the election and who won.

Just look at what kind of message Trump pushed

Straight from wiki:
"Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you"
"The ads, which have several different variations, aired more than 30,000 times in every swing state.[2] The Trump campaign put the ads in heavy rotation during televised NFL and college football games.[5][6] According to an analysis by Future Forward, "Kamala is for they/them" was one of Trump's most effective 30-second attack ads, shifting the race 2.7 percentage points in favor of Trump after viewers watched it."

People fucking hate trannies.

>>103245710
I think lots more will flock and it'll become yet another left wing echo chamber

>>103245710
Already that high? That's pretty impressive.

>>103245718
I'm not talking about who won, I'm talking about what either side uses as their scapegoat.

>>103245719
See, I doubt that. The majority of people generating content via lazy comments are .. lazy boomers. It took a decade for them to slowly move from Facebook(heck, even that sentence is debatable), they won't move to another platform in mere weeks.
>But anon! Cool trendy teens don't care about boomers! In fact they don't want them to begin with!
But they sure as hell do want to be on the big platform with big numbers.

>>103245719
Thats what you guys say about every website that isn't 90% rightwing slop

>>103244751
I mean censorship has gotten so bad and I've gotten pretty jaded. Most platforms ban that content on the spot. Even more concerning is X's aggressive shadowbanning where dissidents think they're not banned and keep screaming into the void despite being censored for saying too many mean words.

File: trump rfk shmuley.jpg (76 KB, 795x587)

76 KB JPG

>>103245391
Strawman. I never defended any of these Chabadnik tools or their genocidal religion.

>>103245765
>implying x even started shadow banning
First day on the internet?

>>103245797
They used to be a lot more lenient, then they started banning you outright. Shadow banning is a lot more dangerous because it tricks the user into thinking they still have a platform.

>>103243847
Drawn CP is still CP and Bsky does not allow it or things close to it unlike your stupid ass Twitter

>>103245762
>Thats what you guys say about every website that isn't 90% rightwing slop

It's almost like any website where free speech is allowed end ups 90% right-wing.
I'm sorry that reality has a right-wing bias.

>>103245794
>their genocidal religion
The religion of Babylon, yes.

>>103244751
Ok so i made an account can you share that block list so i can find my frens?

>>103245818
>It's almost like any website where spam bots are allowed end ups 90% right-wing.
ftfy

>>103245762
Leftism is ideological subversion, when are you going to learn the fucking patterns?.

>>103245762
as a former leftist, my take on this is that any website that doesn't go heavy on censorship will inevitably become right-wing because leftists inevitably lose all the arguments when you're allowed to bring up the actual facts.

>>103245985
>actual facts
Kek

>>103244751
Nope, you get auto banned for saying there are only 2 genders.

>>103245956
>spam bots

Yes, everyone that disagrees with you is a bot.
Dumb schizo.

>>103243176
kek

>>103245815
>Drawn CP is still CP
mental illness

>>103246059
Probably

>>103246026
The modern Leftist worldview is destroyed by 10 minutes of clicking links in government archives and wikipedia.
>no you can't post FBI crime statistics, they're racist and we'll ban you!
>no you're not allowed to link to the wikipedia articles of the owners and CEO's of the corporations that control 90% of the mass media, that's antisemitic! I'll call Scotland Yard and have you arrested for hate speech!

>>103246101
>the owners and CEO's of the corporations that control 90% of the mass media
So Babylon hasn't let go of their servant class, then.

>>103241831
Go back faggot

>>103243006
Not true
https://github.com/bluesky-social/pds

>>103243135
You don't have to have a username at all just your domain

Leftism can't exist without censorship and heavy moderation it won't be long bluesky will start using bots to boost pseudo engagement

>>103244392
>except on tiktok

I know from experience that there's little leftists on tiktok too. That article lies.

>>103246462
>boost pseudo engagement

*manufacture narrative.

>>103242901
>>103242897
It allows safe shit
No loli or shota

File: 1620931537596.jpg (78 KB, 720x871)

78 KB JPG

>>103246462
Reddit use to be such a rich source of info due to the little censorship. And if you didnt like something, you just made a new subreddit. Probably the best example of decentralization.

What we found out however is that leftist and authoritarian types HATE free speech existing, even if they are not seeing it in front of their face. So they deliberately infiltrated the admin teams and mods across subreddits, even using canceling tactics, to attempt to quarantine, ban, and close subreddits.

Which ended up destroying reddit entirely and turning it into a liberal echo chamber. Goes to show that our ancestors were right about communist ideals. These types of people should not only be banned from power, but should be snuffed out entirely before they get out of control.

>>103246052
>confusing sex with gender
that's on you, chump

>>103246942
nta but theyre the same as far as Im concerned. tired of this wordplay of shit

>it's a "social" sex!

Fuck off. Male and female. Aint anymore complicated than that.

It's amazing how much dumber people like that are despite calling themselves educated when a fucking 1st grader knows there's only two types of genders/ sex.

>>103246942
Two sexes
Two genders
Cry about, gringo troon
T. Hispanic who hates your guts

>>103242258
That's the most convoluted way of saying
>I love to censor myself, because if I do it myself, it's not censorship anymore

>>103247057
trying to prevent me from telling you to talk to the hand is an intrusion on my right to free speech.
simples
now do a 360 and go back

>>103242127
>X has no censorship

They definitely shadow ban, or limit visibility on things related to JQ/Kabba{..}, unless you're famous.
>>103242435
>There are many imageboards or whatever that don't censor.
They get flooded with CP and are told to either allow AWS bots or get charged for distribution.

>>103242408
>Ok what site doesn't censor?
Telegram, but these assholes require you use an Android emulator plus phone number.

>>103242482
>That banning was particularly done at the behest of Harris-Biden left wing political stooges
Alex Jones got banned across a slew of big tech platforms under Trump, and Trump did nothing to threaten the Sherman Anti-trus act.

The last time I opened Bluesky, I saw a photo of a ball cap that some faggot jizzed on. Never again.

>>103242598
>"The internet" is not censored though. It was far more censored in the past

You could watch 3 hour conspiracy videos on video.google.com back in 2007. Now Loose Change is straggled by the algorithm.
They also hide subscriber numbers.

>>103242641
>Democracy means people have the freedom to choose to whom
There are only 2 forms of government. A republic where there's weak figure head like Enrico Dandolo to pander to the plutocrats/one-party state officials. Only benefit is some sort of accountability and consitency towards long term goals. Second, is an autocracy, where leader is in a much better position to introduce real reforms and execute potential usurpers (like Kennedy's assasination) on the spot.

>>103243824
Saved. Thank you.

>>103248310
>>There are many imageboards or whatever that don't censor.
>They get flooded with CP and are told to either allow AWS bots or get charged for distribution.
Didn't happen to mine 5 years running, and yes I have more than 10 users

>>103248557
You could watch softcore porn and illegal videos like torture/voyeurism on YouTube back in the day and they would never be taken down