Resistance Twitter 2.0

[Andy_Ross]

Over 20 million now, putting on about a million a day.

Govindajeggy has arrived and more importantly Memorial Device has made it his home and left Twitter altogether so as an Alternative National Treasure there's even less reason for me to visit Twitter now.

I think about 75% of the people I regularly follow and interact with are over.

 

[I Am The Scum]

It shows how Bluesky will not allow any postings that conflicts with their orthodoxy. A debate will pretty naturally have "another side". This is Babylon Bee, not the Klan. If Bluesky can't bear the sight of a mild conservative satire post, you can infer that no debate can be had at all.

ETA: an echo chamber is a really snuggly place to avoid having your cage rattled though. No challenges, nothing to make you rethink your positions. Just a cocooned little safe space.

The absence of transphobic "humor" does not entail the absence of debate regarding trans rights. It's like saying we can't talk about the voting rights act if I'm not allowed to say the N word.

 

[Thermal]

The absence of transphobic "humor" does not entail the absence of debate regarding trans rights. It's like saying we can't talk about the voting rights act if I'm not allowed to say the N word.

Was it transphobic humor in the Babylon Bee labeled posts? I can't tell because it was badthinked and scrubbed.

I mean in fairness, I don't know much about BB, only see them reposted on places like here, but I was under the impression that they are pretty milquetoast in their satire?

 

[I Am The Scum]

Was it transphobic humor in the Babylon Bee labeled posts? I can't tell because it was badthinked and scrubbed.

I mean in fairness, I don't know much about BB, only see them reposted on places like here, but I was under the impression that they are pretty milquetoast in their satire?

You can still go to their Bluesky account and click the "show" button and you'll see it.

I don't think Babylon Bee has ever posted a joke more sophisticated than "I identify as..." in its entire history.

 

[Thermal]

You can still go to their Bluesky account and click the "show" button and you'll see it.

Thanks for that, I didn't know.

I don't think Babylon Bee has ever posted a joke more sophisticated than "I identify as..." in its entire history.

Ok, but is that really "transphobic"? I get that they beat that joke to death, but ridiculing a kind of reasoning that is ill-thought is not really being afraid of trans people.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Thanks for that, I didn't know.

Ok, but is that really "transphobic"? I get that they beat that joke to death, but ridiculing a kind of reasoning that is ill-thought is not really being afraid of trans people.

I'll spell it out as clearly as I possibly can.

The "joke" that Rolfe is defending is a trans woman being referred to as a man. That's it. That's what we are meant to believe is deleterious to debate. You can still see it if you want, but you just have to click a button.

If that's a step too far, then there is probably not a social media site on the planet that is equipped to host "proper debate."

 

[Thermal]

I'll spell it out as clearly as I possibly can.

The "joke" that Rolfe is defending is a trans woman being referred to as a man. That's it. That's what we are meant to believe is deleterious to debate. You can still see it if you want, but you just have to click a button.

Actually, I can't, because I'm not on Bluesky. That's what I meant about not knowing what was "labeled".

If that's a step too far, then there is probably not a social media site on the planet that is equipped to host "proper debate."

No, it's that you are talking about specific details that are not shown or mentioned in the discussion. That can cause confusion.

For instance, I'm not on Bluesky, and not entirely sure I want to be, if it is designed as a safe space echo chamber. I'm listening to discussion about it here. If you have to join it in order to follow a discussion about whether it's worthwhile to join, well... that doesn't make much sense.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Actually, I can't, because I'm not on Bluesky. That's what I meant about not knowing what was "labeled".

No, it's that you are talking about specific details that are not shown or mentioned in the discussion. That can cause confusion.

For instance, I'm not on Bluesky, and not entirely sure I want to be, if it is designed as a safe space echo chamber. I'm listening to discussion about it here. If you have to join it in order to follow a discussion about whether it's worthwhile to join, well... that doesn't make much sense.

I'm at the point where I don't know what you're complaining about. You don't need a Bluesky account to view what Babylon Bee posts on their Bluesky account. You can go there right now and see all of their posts. Yes, you will have to click an extra time to see some of the content. Is the extra click all it takes to make something an "echo chamber?"

 

[johnny karate]

Here's someone detailing how they create a more agreeable experience for themselves on social media:

I'm just not seeing the problems you're describing. I follow the people I'm interested in and only look at the "following" feed. Although I sometimes encounter posters who are a pain in the neck, they're accounts that are engaging on the topics I'm interested in, not "random trolls". Yes I will block a blinkered EV-hater or someone who perpetually insists that TWAW and the holy trans are the most oppressed creatures on the face of the globe, but that's not random trolling.

I guess I'm just using it for talking to friends, and that's still what I'm doing, with the occasional block when someone gets too annoying. I just don't see what the problem is.

Here's that same person going full "Debate me bro" on other people doing the same thing:

Looks like a great place to debate!

View attachment 57800

 

[johnny karate]

I'm at the point where I don't know what you're complaining about. You don't need a Bluesky account to view what Babylon Bee posts on their Bluesky account. You can go there right now and see all of their posts. Yes, you will have to click an extra time to see some of the content. Is the extra click all it takes to make something an "echo chamber?"

I'm waiting for anyone to articulate a reason why privately-run websites shouldn't be allowed to moderate the content they host as they see fit.

The previous owner of Twitter didn't want a bunch of right wing propaganda on his website. The new owner does. The Twitter users who don't like the policies of the new owner have migrated to another site more to their liking. The free exercise of everyone's rights continues unabated.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Here's someone detailing how they create a more agreeable experience for themselves on social media:


Here's that same person going full "Debate me bro" on other people doing the same thing:

If you don't like it, then stop looking at it!

Okay

Oh my god why aren't they looking at it???

 

[Thermal]

I'm at the point where I don't know what you're complaining about.

Then let me explain it..again... as clearly as I possibly can:

This is a discussion about Bluesky (it's actually about "Resistance Twitter 2.0, but a Resistance ain't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ tweeting, but that's another story).

Rolfe posts a screenshot with no context or link. The implication is that Bluesky scrubs very very mild wrongthink from easy view, making debating a multistep process, causing a reader to have to keep going back and open scrubbed posts that they were not aware were relevant to ongoing discussion that the reader might become interested in. Because they were scrubbed. That seems like a nuisance setup.

You ask what that has to do with debate. I think it is fairly obvious. You then go on speaking in half riddles about the content that I still am unaware of. Then you get pissy, not even realizing how far you drifted away from the topic.

If a reader wants a poster scrubbed in advance, let them block the poster themselves, like we do here with the ignore list. Pre-scrubbing wrongthink seems like building the site to be an echo chamber, with extra steps needed to have honest debate. An actually vile poster/troll should be scrubbed, but I doubt BB rises (or falls) to that level.

It's not a matter of a post being visible with extra steps. The question seems to be if Bluesky is over scrubbing right out of the gate, discouraging many opposition views from bothering, knowing that many won't take the extra "opening" step, and probably never backtracking to retro-figure out what is being discussed.

You don't need a Bluesky account to view what Babylon Bee posts on their Bluesky account. You can go there right now and see all of their posts. Yes, you will have to click an extra time to see some of the content. Is the extra click all it takes to make something an "echo chamber?"

No. Building the site to pre-scrub mild disagreement is a red flag to many, though. We can one-click to view an Ignored members post here, too. But how about letting the user decide who is vile and who is not, to warrant that treatment?

 

[johnny karate]

Then let me explain it..again... as clearly as I possibly can:

This is a discussion about Bluesky (it's actually about "Resistance Twitter 2.0, but a Resistance ain't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ tweeting, but that's another story).

Rolfe posts a screenshot with no context or link. The implication is that Bluesky scrubs very very mild wrongthink from easy view, making debating a multistep process, causing a reader to have to keep going back and open scrubbed posts that they were not aware were relevant to ongoing discussion that the reader might become interested in. Because they were scrubbed. That seems like a nuisance setup.

You ask what that has to do with debate. I think it is fairly obvious. You then go on speaking in half riddles about the content that I still am unaware of. Then you get pissy, not even realizing how far you drifted away from the topic.

If a reader wants a poster scrubbed in advance, let them block the poster themselves, like we do here with the ignore list. Pre-scrubbing wrongthink seems like building the site to be an echo chamber, with extra steps needed to have honest debate. An actually vile poster/troll should be scrubbed, but I doubt BB rises (or falls) to that level.

It's not a matter of a post being visible with extra steps. The question seems to be if Bluesky is over scrubbing right out of the gate, discouraging many opposition views from bothering, knowing that many won't take the extra "opening" step, and probably never backtracking to retro-figure out what is being discussed.

No. Building the site to pre-scrub mild disagreement is a red flag to many, though. We can one-click to view an Ignored members post here, too. But how about letting the user decide who is vile and who is not, to warrant that treatment?

Can you articulate the problem you see with a social media site curating their content as they see fit? Presumable anyone unhappy with their methods can patronize one of the other widely available options. I'm genuinely not seeing the problem.

 

[Sherkeu]

^^ about the bee.... posts restricted on bluesky

The "funny" in the Babylon Bee post (now hidden) was that is was the exact post that "old" Twitter insisted they delete, or stay banned from.posting. The Bee refused as a matter af principle for a parody site. And they stayed banned for a long time.
Twitter is a private company, so the response was "go have your own space if you want to post things twitter finds to be against its policies."

This was (eventually) an inspiration for Elon to make a ridiculously high offer for the stock which would create a fiduciary legal responsibility to allow shareholders to consider this huge return on their stock. ...and so it goes.... now partisanship on the politely realms of x/Twitter are about even whereas before it was heavily left leaning.

Twitter Suspends The Babylon Bee

Readers of the Bee,

babylonbee.com

It is a 44 Billion $$ post

 

[Thermal]

Can you articulate the problem you see with a social media site curating their content as they see fit?

I think I have?

Presumable anyone unhappy with their methods can patronize one of the other widely available options. I'm genuinely not seeing the problem.

It's not a "problem", per se. It's just something I, personally, would find unworthwhile.

It's set up to be an echo chamber, with apparently an extremely low threshold for wrongthink, with the technical "out" that you can take extra steps to read the wrongthink postings, presumably repeatedly, for every post. Ok, fine. Great! Yay Bluesky! Just not a place I'd want to hide away from being challenged.

Like, I kind of like this place. No one scrubs theprestige's posts because he conflicts with orthodoxy. I can just read them without extra steps, and if I find him to be like logger, never saying anything of value, just put him.on ye Olde iggy list. Bluesky builds in an iggy list. Good to know.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I think I have?

It's not a "problem", per se. It's just something I, personally, would find unworthwhile.

It's set up to be an echo chamber, with apparently an extremely low threshold for wrongthink, with the technical "out" that you can take extra steps to read the wrongthink postings, presumably repeatedly, for every post. Ok, fine. Great! Yay Bluesky! Just not a place I'd want to hide away from being challenged.

Like, I kind of like this place. No one scrubs theprestige's posts because he conflicts with orthodoxy. I can just read them without extra steps, and if I find him to be like logger, never saying anything of value, just put him.on ye Olde iggy list. Bluesky builds in an iggy list. Good to know.

People have been banned from this website. That has to be a million times worse than the extra click, right?

 

[Rolfe]

^^ about the bee.... posts restricted on bluesky

The "funny" in the Babylon Bee post was that is was the exact post that "old" Twitter insisted they delete, or stay banned from.posting. The Bee refused as a matter af principle for a parody site. And they stayed banned for a long time.
Twitter is a private company, so the response was "go have your own space if you want to post things twitter finds to be against its policies."

This was (eventually) an inspiration for Elon to make a ridiculously high offer for the stock which would create a fiduciary legal responsibility to allow shareholders to consider this huge return on their stock. ...and so it goes.... now partisanship on the politely realms of x/Twitter are about even whereas before it was heavily left leaning.

Twitter Suspends The Babylon Bee

Readers of the Bee,

babylonbee.com

I didn't know any of that, and not being on BlueSky I had no idea what The Babylon Bee had actually posted there. I was just amused by the string of censored posts from an account I thought was quite unlikely to be posting pornography or violent death threats.

 

[Thermal]

People have been banned from this website. That has to be a million times worse than the extra click, right?

As I said, ya gots to deal with the vile posters and the true trolls, banning when necessary.

Im.more interested in an open site, where you deal with the vile as needed, not whitewash postings preemptively. I want to hear the opposition, if they have token civility.

And it's not a matter of "an extra click", if I'm reading this right. It's an extra click for every post and every member who does not fall in line with the Safe Space rules. That becomes a whole lot of clicks in a multi-party debate.

 

[I Am The Scum]

As I said, ya gots to deal with the vile posters and the true trolls, banning when necessary.

Im.more interested in an open site, where you deal with the vile as needed, not whitewash postings preemptively. I want to hear the opposition, if they have token civility.

I'm not gonna argue about your preferences. If you don't think Bluesky is right for you, then that's fine.

The only issue I have is that people are taking their subjective preferences of moderation and trying to make them into something bigger: An objective fact of censorship. That's just not the case. I'm sure there's someone out there who would look at the swear filter of this forum as censorship. To each their own.

And it's not a matter of "an extra click", if I'm reading this right. It's an extra click for every post and every member who does not fall in line with the Safe Space rules. That becomes a whole lot of clicks in a multi-party debate.

The entirety of BB's feed is not hidden. It's just the "offensive" posts. As best I can tell, it was hidden because of user reports.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Also a good opportunity for another reminder that under Elon's direction, Twitter auto-hides any tweet containing the word "cisgender." People often form weird, hypocritical/uninformed views on what "good debate" looks like when that fact is hiding in the shadows.