Resistance Twitter 2.0

Where will the resistance end up posting, mostly?

  • Bluesky

    Votes: 16 72.7%

  • Threads

    Votes: 1 4.5%

  • Mastodon

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other (please specify in comments)

    Votes: 2 9.1%

  • On Planet X, we resist telepathically

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .
Rolfe said:
I just found another hydrogen car fan. Bless.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with that? I mean there are lots of issues, but Toyota, for example is investing in Hydrogen, and there are significant potential benefits of fuel cells (Hydrogen, alcohols, or ammonia) over batteries, specifically the power needed to charge them quickly.

I wouldn't bet against battery EVs, but equally could see fuel cell EVs replace them
 
alfaniner said:
I signed up for Bluesky (I always mentally read it as rhyming with "brewski") but have not seen any Trending or For You subjects come up. I suppose it may be a while for the algorithm to activate it. At least I hope they do. I don't want to just scroll page after page looking at random posts.
Click to expand...
That's what the feeds is for, and there are "starter" packs from various people, so if you have specific interests, you can see them.
 
jimbob said:
What's wrong with that? I mean there are lots of issues, but Toyota, for example is investing in Hydrogen, and there are significant potential benefits of fuel cells (Hydrogen, alcohols, or ammonia) over batteries, specifically the power needed to charge them quickly.

I wouldn't bet against battery EVs, but equally could see fuel cell EVs replace them
Click to expand...

Toyota is delusional, and jousting with their fanbois can be entertaining. But that's quite a long way off topic.

From what I see, BlueSky is a platform for those who only want to see posts by people blindly devoted to all the US-left virtue-signalling wokeness that just lost them the election, and they're welcome to it.
 
Rolfe said:
Toyota is delusional, and jousting with their fanbois can be entertaining. But that's quite a long way off topic.
Click to expand...
It is, so why did you introduce it into the thread?
From what I see, BlueSky is a platform for those who only want to see posts by people blindly devoted to all the US-left virtue-signalling wokeness that just lost them the election, and they're welcome to it.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you about BlueSky. Graham Linehan, Wings Over Scotland and you should steer well clear.
 
Guybrush Threepwood said:
It is, so why did you introduce it into the thread?


I completely agree with you about BlueSky. Graham Linehan, Wings Over Scotland and you should steer well clear.
Click to expand...

I introduced it as evidence that Twitter is not an echo-chamber, and if one wants to engage with someone with a different point of view (as opposed to being a cry-bully and running to the moderators demanding that they be banned for hate speech), one can do that.
 
mumblethrax said:
Don’t need to declare I when I can just prove it.
Click to expand...

That's not him.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1857867392296116408

His reply to that tweet, if you can't read it, is "It's not."

I was looking for the tweet where he was laughing at the fact that multiple fake profiles have been created pretending to be him, and they're attacking each other. But I'm not scrolling all night. What I am seeing is multiple people reporting that they have joined BlueSky and simply posted "Transwomen are men" and their accounts have been instantly and permanently banned. If that's the sort of platform you all want to interact on, feel free. (Someone also reported being insta-banned for posting only "Make America Great Again".)
 
Last edited:
Why would a fake account be permitted to stay where his real one was deleted without a single tweet?

Doesn’t seem plausible either way.
 
How would I know? I've noticed rather a lot of people who seem happy to dismiss any statement that contradicts their beliefs as being a lie though, so carry on.

The people I follow on Twitter include a pretty large number who were either banned by the pre-Musk regime for posting about their belief in biological reality, or who had multiple suspensions for that reason and had to fight to keep their accounts. I had a couple of suspensions of my own on that account, one for saying that only women get pregnant. An awful lot of us were self-censoring in order not to lose our accounts permanently. Once Musk took over pretty much everyone banned for that reason was reinstated, and although things can still be a bit fraught - I don't know if it's simply that automated systems will still ban people if there are enough reports about a post, or whether some of the former trans-activist moderators escaped the purge - but it's massively better and people can actually have a debate without too much fear of reprisals.

Many of these people are having fun creating BlueSky accounts and posting terribly hateful things like "human beings can't change sex" to see how soon they get banned. Takes about 24 hours sometimes, but it always happens. I've also seen images of BlueSky feeds in which every single post is blacked out with a censor warning. I have also seen images of posts abusing Joanne Rowling (among others) in the most graphic terms (one I remember suggested she should engage in sexual activity with a cactus) which have allegedly been reported multiple times but attract no sanction.

If that's the sort of platform people want, they can have it. Obviously. But let's not pretend that any sort of grown-up debate between people who hold opposing views is ever going to happen there. "Anyone who disagrees with me is hateful and doesn't deserve a platform" seems to be the rule.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
"I can just prove it" tho
Click to expand...
Well, yeah. There are two possibilities there--that it's really him, or creating an account that appears to be his doesn't get you "deleted".

It's probably also worth pointing out that Bluesky doesn't delete accounts for violating its moderation rules.

So I do think it's pretty implausible that this is an accurate account of something that actually happened.
 
mumblethrax said:
By thinking about it and formulating a response, I guess.


I didn't call it a lie.
Click to expand...

I'm not a tech guru. But on the forum where I'm a moderator the admin is pretty good at sorting out sock accounts and checking identities. One of the other mods is fairly amazing too.* If Stu says he was banned (not this month, some time back in the summer) before he posted anything on BlueSky, I believe him.

ETA: I see you are explicitly calling it a lie now, though.

* Example. An account was flagged as posting from the USA whereas the profile as registered said Switzerland. My fellow-moderator was able to find out who the poster was, ascertain from information available elsewhere on the internet that he was in the process of moving from Switzerland to the USA in relation to his job, so the account was white-listed. I have no idea how he did that. It's not the same, but knowing the sort of thing that's possible makes me believe it's perfectly plausible that someone at BlueSky was able to ascertain when it was Stu himself who had created an account, and ban it.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
I'm not a tech guru. But on the forum where I'm a moderator the admin is pretty good at sorting out sock accounts and checking identities. One of the other mods is fairly amazing too.
Click to expand...
Sockpuppets are relatively easy to detect, since all you have to do is establish (to a reasonable degree of certainty) that the account is being created by the same person.

That's a different task from identifying someone from a browser/app footprint alone. If this were possible, verification processes would not be necessary.

ETA: I see you are explicitly calling it a lie now, though.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not. It's possible to be mistaken without lying.

The multiple copies of this (referencing different accounts) that are being posted are all faked then?
Click to expand...
There's a distinction between suspension and deletion. You have to request that your account be deleted.
 
There's obviously a market for a social media platform where people can only post about trans stuff. Maybe three: one each for loyalists to each side, countering views forbidden, and then one where both sides can duke it out.
 
TragicMonkey said:
There's obviously a market for a social media platform where people can only post about trans stuff. Maybe three: one each for loyalists to each side, countering views forbidden, and then one where both sides can duke it out.
Click to expand...
Do you think we should try that here?

Only half joking
 
jimbob said:
That's what the feeds is for, and there are "starter" packs from various people, so if you have specific interests, you can see them.
Click to expand...
I just got a lot of blanks when looking at the feeds, but apparently it takes some time to propagate, initially.
 
mumblethrax said:
Sockpuppets are relatively easy to detect, since all you have to do is establish (to a reasonable degree of certainty) that the account is being created by the same person.

That's a different task from identifying someone from a browser/app footprint alone. If this were possible, verification processes would not be necessary.

No, I'm not. It's possible to be mistaken without lying.

There's a distinction between suspension and deletion. You have to request that your account be deleted.
Click to expand...

You can continue to disbelieve anything that threatens your world-view, of course. However, the distinction between "permanently suspended" and "banned" rather escapes me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom