this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2025
763 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

4942 readers
531 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.


Post guidelines

[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip


Icon attribution | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rozodru@pie.andmc.ca 38 points 1 day ago (27 children)

shouldn't really surprise anyone. Didn't their CEO like several months ago pretty much defend a known fascist/tranphob on the platform and essentially told people who complained about it to "not post" out of protest? Also Bluesky is extremely quick to bend to the whims of whatever government body makes demands. They were one of the first sites to quickly implement age verification in the UK I believe.

load more comments (27 replies)

Bsky hates its users

[–] Cyberflunk@lemmy.world 97 points 1 day ago (7 children)

ill never understand how jack fucking dorsey is regrifting the internet AGAIN with a centralized censorship engine.

fuck this dude entirely

[–] sam@piefed.ca 34 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I'm pretty sure he has nothing to do with bluesky. i think he's into nostr now.

[–] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 27 points 1 day ago

He founded Bluesky, but after helping Elon buy Twitter, he left.

[–] 73ms@sopuli.xyz 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nothing might be going too far. He left the board since it wasn't good PR for them but Bluesky is not transparent about its ownership and Dorsey could well still have a stake in it.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 5 points 1 day ago (4 children)

They have talked about some parts of it. They got funding from Twitter under his direction and got to keep the funds when Twitter bailed on their side of the contract as Musk bought it (the initial plan was to move Twitter to a new protocol)

It's a public benefit corporation. Jack can't legally do much at all after having left the board

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Cyberflunk@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

that might explain why nostr is filled with rypto bros and racists. nostr world is toxic

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 day ago

i largely guage the toxicity of platforms by how quickly you encounter a genocide denier. nostr holds the record in that i encountered one on there literally as soon as i finished onboarding. a record that can only be tied, not beaten

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SethTaylor@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

He doesn't own or work at Bluesky

[–] Cyberflunk@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluesky

He founded it, but he did indeed leave in 2024, i missed that bit of news

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 33 points 1 day ago

Oh no, surprise, censorship on a centralized platform. No one saw that coming.

[–] IHeartBadCode@fedia.io 149 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Publicly available police reports.

I'm completely against doxxing. But there were public reports. That's censorship.

[–] misk@piefed.social 35 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

That’s also what many other social media would do because it’s easier to ban posting of personal information regardless of where it came from because you can’t trust moderation you outsourced to some third world country to do proper checks.

Example:

Reddit is quite open and pro-free speech, but it is not okay to post someone's personal information or post links to personal information. This includes links to public Facebook pages and screenshots of Facebook pages with the names still legible.

Posting someone's personal information will get you banned. When posting screenshots, be sure to edit out any personally identifiable information to avoid running afoul of this rule.

https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043066452-Is-posting-someone-s-private-or-personal-information-okay

Dunno if Bsky has something similar but it’s more of a cost optimisation than anything so people are getting pointlessly angry at individual companies rather than the system which has this sort of behaviour as a guaranteed outcome.

[–] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

A competent programmer could write an algorithm to knock out the low hanging fruit, like public Facebook pages, in about five minutes.

Might take me a couple hours. Someone genuinely good and familiar with the space would have been done in less time than it took to write this comment.

Can't imagine why they would do that, or why they would want to extend protections they politically must extend to marginalized people who take real precautions to assholes who know they'll always be protected by power.

[–] misk@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They don’t want to deal with the slightest risk of dealing with legal consequences. The ole corpo risk matrix + risk appetite as assessed by lawyers resulted in this, no IT involved ever probably.

[–] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Totally, corporations will always go fasch, not just because they want to¹ but because it's what they are

But

can't trust moderation

There is low hanging fruit that can be procedurally verified.

They chose this, obviously, clearly

¹they always want to

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 73ms@sopuli.xyz 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

can always come up with rationalizations but the fact remains there are other platforms that will not "cost optimize" it away.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pyre@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (4 children)

wow if we can't trust me jack dorsey who can we even trust anymore‽

[–] desertdruid@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

did anyone actually trusted jack dorsey?

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 day ago

more than you'd think…

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] BossDj@piefed.social 30 points 2 days ago (1 children)

He got banned for doxxing? Is that right?

I never trust anyone who says "I got banned from ____ for saying _____". I've never seen that claim match the reality of what happened. I hope he posted proof somewhere at some point

*I don't use Bluesky

[–] artyom@piefed.social 43 points 2 days ago (6 children)

I don't think sharing publicly available documents constitutes doxxing

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›