- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
Remember: you can't make a Bluesky header image of a defunct website, or a website you aren't actually an active poster on. It's simply not possible.
Bluesky - "Decentralized" Twitter Alternative. Leftist Tranny Hugbox. "Answer" to Elon Musk's "Fascist" Takeover of 𝕏 (Formerly Twitter).
- Thread starter Admiral Throbnelius
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2021
They don't. The vast, vast majority of them are either welfare parasites or they're still living with (and being bankrolled by) their parents. For every moneyed troon like Brianna Wu there are a hundred who are broke as shit because they spend their entire day seething online.
Silence Of The Cows would be great, and you could repurpose all Null and Chris's text message conversations for the dialogue when he interviews Chris in his cell.
The question is will Jersh be a real method actor and do the scene where Liz Fong Jones flings jizz at him for real?
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2017
I'm pretty sure there are dozens of similar projects out there that are either new/being built, stale, dead or whatever. I think bsky only has the standing that it does because jack and tweeter launched it and it got a large amount of funding.
If you were going to go through this trouble you may as well pick another one which is closer to what you want and either join that or fork it.
It seems totally possible to just fork bsky and launch your own but probably expensive to customise and deploy all the necessary servers and shit.
To be honest: if you had a solid idea and could put together a decent presentation and get some decent coders on your side there are hundreds of grant programs out there that would literally give you money to build something like this - there are "ecosystems" with buckets of money, no apps and no users, you just have to know what you want to build and what you're asking for. Protip: "I want to clone tweeter/BSky" won't get you very far.
I mean even if you didn't want to launch your entire own platform like bsky has done there are other novel platforms out there that you can join and customize and get grant money for doing so.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2024
It's been funny seeing the enthusiasm turn to pure cope over on the subreddit for bluesky. Submitting random blogspam (possibly even self-made but definitely astroturfed), and then all upvoting while they self-sooth in the comments over how it's actually a good thing re: all the ongoing internal strife and the fact that the rest of the world is already getting over the hype of this newest "twitter dethroner".
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2017
I think I will just add something to all of this discussion, I'm not fully read up on the protocol but it seems the recent hysteria and the change.org petition as well as other things seem to indicate the community "running" bluesky are basically fully intending on bypassing the way it's moderation systems are intended to work?
It's not the worst thing in the world for a platform/protocol that is new and experiencing rapid growth to do this because there are many problems that takes too much time to deal with. But when it comes to "social moderation" they're letting people with certain views have an outsized impact on the direction of things (or maybe not considering Jesse Signal hasn't been banned).
It can create bad practices and expectations later down the line but it's a big failing because it means the platform/protocols actual tooling and system isn't being used and instead they're just listening to loud, vocal people who claim to have extreme authority on this matter.
It's kind of acceptable in the short term but it's going to blindside them in the long term if they don't figure out some other way of resolving shit because whatever they think of "KF users" or more accurately what the "moderation experts" are saying about "KF users" and Jesse Singal isn't actually representative of "the internet".
It bears repeating: bsky users, just like kiwifarms users are not a hive mind. If they're bending over this far backwards for people who put a single word or the logo of some website in a banner then when they get the actual bad users they're probably going to find themselves seriously under equipped.
(again I haven't done a full technical read of things so I may not be completely accurate here--one thing is for certain though, having a large amount of your users try to bypass things by creating fucking change.org petitions (turbo lol) is a very bad indicator of things to come)
- https://bsky.social/about/blog/4-13-2023-moderation
- https://atproto.com/guides/overview#speech-reach-and-moderation
It's not the worst thing in the world for a platform/protocol that is new and experiencing rapid growth to do this because there are many problems that takes too much time to deal with. But when it comes to "social moderation" they're letting people with certain views have an outsized impact on the direction of things (or maybe not considering Jesse Signal hasn't been banned).
It can create bad practices and expectations later down the line but it's a big failing because it means the platform/protocols actual tooling and system isn't being used and instead they're just listening to loud, vocal people who claim to have extreme authority on this matter.
It's kind of acceptable in the short term but it's going to blindside them in the long term if they don't figure out some other way of resolving shit because whatever they think of "KF users" or more accurately what the "moderation experts" are saying about "KF users" and Jesse Singal isn't actually representative of "the internet".
It bears repeating: bsky users, just like kiwifarms users are not a hive mind. If they're bending over this far backwards for people who put a single word or the logo of some website in a banner then when they get the actual bad users they're probably going to find themselves seriously under equipped.
(again I haven't done a full technical read of things so I may not be completely accurate here--one thing is for certain though, having a large amount of your users try to bypass things by creating fucking change.org petitions (turbo lol) is a very bad indicator of things to come)
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2013
I suspect work is already apace with regards to crafting some pretext for returning to xitter en masse.
My autism radar and pattern recognition as to how these retards both are obsessed with the aesthetic of fighting muh nazis and also prone to farcical levels of unwarranted self importance, lead me to think that they will spin their mass return as some currentyear D-Day to liberate Nazi occupied xitter.....somehow.
just Reading a post
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2024
I agree.
It is going to be a big problem down the line. They are allowing the most mentally ill and obviously delusional users to have a big megaphone. It will hurt them long term. They are jumping at shadows. It will choke the website down the line, especially if they want monetise.
Nobody is going to risk paying money to sub, when on the word of an ass blasted and delusional tranny, they get their account banned.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2017
I haven't researched it but I doubt they even have solid monetisation plans.
Their blog said something about having recently completed a fundraising round ( https://bsky.social/about/blog/10-24-2024-series-a ) and because they can easily demonstrate real, organic and substantial user growth they won't have to really show much in the way of monetization at this stage.
There may of course be plans but do keep in mind how many social media platforms there are, and even some of the largest ones still aren't profitable today.
Investors will likely be more interested in a captive audience at this stage and other potential things.
...wait a second...
LOL
Has anyone told bluesky users that their little soapbox is being funded (in part) by a block chain/cryptocurrency company?
It appears they've only relatively recently started fucking around with premium services but those will never generate meaningful revenue for something like this. If you want proof of that go check basically any mainstream social media platform - premium services (not including ads) are extremely fickle and hard to deal with. I think only OnlyFans really ever succeeded with them, but that's really an edge case.
Guaranteed they will try to somehow put cryptocurrency in it or leverage it as an identity protocol/mechanism for cryptocurrency.
Hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahah
If there is one thing transgender people generally (not all) vehemently dislike it is cryptocurrency. This also includes "the type" of uses that would rush to bluesky from tweeter to begin with.
In case you doubt this: look up the sentiment towards cryptocurrency that Brianna Wu and people like Fatrick hold towards it.
I hope they know the dollars powering their bsky servers and development probably came from climate burning Bitcoin mining.
Look at this shit: https://www.blockchaincapital.com/portfolio
If they ever found this out the cognitive dissonance would be fucking top kek
Last edited:
just Reading a post
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2024
They are going to have to run ads. Not even the internet communists they court work for free. Server upkeep,hosting costs, moderator positions. Plus i bet a huge salary for the execs. Their main office seems to be in a cosmopolitan area. So rent for the place must be sky fucking high.
Angel investors only stretch so far. They start demanding returns.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2017
No they won't necessarily have to. That is a web 2.0 thing. They can do partnerships and leverage certain things for substantial income (the same way Google pays for Chrome to be the default browser but Chrome itself doesn't have ads).
Having a captive audience is extremely valuable.
There's also certain other things they can do for outside of advertising for income that I won't get into - but they definitely exist and are at a very primitive stage currently.
It is also possible that they plan for ads in some manner since I'm not sure if all of their investors are cryptocurrency-adjacent or what their investors even see as the future of their investments here. It is just that "advertising" and "decentralized protocol" are two things that are difficult to marry together.
Most investors in shit like this are taking pretty extreme financial bets. What is probably most attractive is that bsky clearly has at the very least like 10m+ "real" users and that is an impressive figure within the industry (it obviously pails in comparison to something like Facebooks MAUs but that's not the point here)
(I won't go into too much detail here about certain things but if people doubt what I'm saying you can put the source as "trust me bro". I have fairly extensive knowledge and experience in this area and am very well read into it).
Edit: Gay-I overview lists out what I was kind of hinting at above - and they already partnered with a domain company:
And yeah it does mention advertising but AFAIK there hasn't been any tenable presentation of how "decentralized advertising" would exactly work - it is hard to enforce the display, let alone consumption (viewing) of ads when a protocol is decentralized (that is why tweeter and YouTube have such a hard on for "unauthorized clients"). But then again nothing that is similar to bsky has ever had this many "real users". Most ideas in this area are still basically scient fiction at this point and have a real hard time navigating around some aspects of transaction costs and also the total erosion of privacy (how do you hide that a user was shown penis enlargement pills)
And also note most of those theorized monetization things involve cryptocurrency and tokens--have you seen the fucking autism people have shown when a game dev dares to even mention NFTs?
Anyway, if I were an investor I would be pretty concerned with these ongoing moderation autism slap fights. I would also be highly concerned that it is catering so hardcore to a user base that will hardcore abandon ship the moment crypto is mentioned in the future.
None of the above really means that they can't succeed btw. The platform is pretty cutting edge and if they come up with some killer ideas for monetization then it could make fuck tons of money.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 16, 2019
On the non-troon side of Bluesky, there's been some excitement over an extortion scheme (archive).
Because Bsky uses external domain names as part of a user name (like the fediverse), domain names suddenly become important again when dealing with personal brands and impersonation. In theory, this allows for "decentralized" sources of social trust that a person is who they claim they are. In practice, it leaves lesser-known or lesser-prepared e-celebs open to impersonation, in a more convincing way than regular user names.
(That blue Conor Sen website is a fake, put up by the impersonator. thesamparr.bsky.social is the extorter using a 2nd impersonating account as a sock puppet.)
It's basically cybersquatting updated for social media. It seems to have been wrapped up within a day, but it took alerting people on Twitter and directly contacting Bsky higher-ups to clear it up. And it probably only worked because it was dragging bigger names like Matt Yglesias into the fight.
The writer summarizing it goes on to complain about Bsky moderation and support, though it doesn't seem like they acted less quickly than any other Big Tech safety and support team. He makes a fair point that Bsky might have created a problem that requires lawsuits to fix:
I'd argue this is yet another Twitter problem, repeated in Bsky but solved differently. Twitter solved this with the original version of the blue checkmark, which was a pain to get but was trustworthy once you did. That was destroyed when Milo Yiannopolous got de-checkmarked for calling a black actress ugly, because the crazies were treating that checkmark as a status symbol. Elon obliterated the checkmark with his changes, and now Twitter has a trust issue again.
Bsky seems like they're trying to automate the problem away, and it's not working very well. Or maybe it is, but it requires manual intervention by humans to recognize trust violations like this. I bet this kind of attack would be more successful against smaller names who don't have the pull to attract official notice.
Because Bsky uses external domain names as part of a user name (like the fediverse), domain names suddenly become important again when dealing with personal brands and impersonation. In theory, this allows for "decentralized" sources of social trust that a person is who they claim they are. In practice, it leaves lesser-known or lesser-prepared e-celebs open to impersonation, in a more convincing way than regular user names.
(That blue Conor Sen website is a fake, put up by the impersonator. thesamparr.bsky.social is the extorter using a 2nd impersonating account as a sock puppet.)
Here’s what happened: On Monday night, Bloomberg columnist Conor Sen announced on his account that he had been the targeted by an extortion attempt on Bluesky. Someone had purchased his namesake domain and was attempting to sell it back to him. I replied to the thread suggesting a couple of next steps for Sen, only to get an unusual reply: Sam Parr, the founder of The Hustle, suggested that he should give in to the extortion attempt, and that it was in fact not extortion. If Sen cared about his online identity, he should pay $10,000 to $25,000 to protect his identity. This created a lot of back-and-forth between me and Parr, and led others to criticize the “braindead” take.
Turns out, it was all part of the scheme. The user had spent weeks building up accounts and buying up domains, then going after prominent blogging personalities. When the actual Parr showed up, the fake Parr started using the other sockpuppets to go after the real Parr, pushing him to buy the fake account.
The user took advantage of a disparity in the incomplete transition between X, formerly known as Twitter, and Bluesky, where a lot of real people are, but some prominent personalities have not yet shown up. And Bluesky, being put to the test, absolutely failed.
It took hours for the network to do something about the obvious extortion attempt. When the real Parr showed up, the fake Parr tried to make it seem like he was the real one. And Bluesky’s moderators … blocked the actual Parr, not the fake one. At this point, I was fully engaged in the mess, and the attempted extorter was not happy about it.
At one point, he wrote to me: “You inserted yourself into something that didn’t concern you at all, drama queen.”
After he did that, I inserted myself again—on a post where a Bluesky employee was announcing a new moderation feature specifically related to verification, in which I screenshotted an interaction on X with Parr. That did the trick—the fake Parr was finally banned soon after.
Turns out, it was all part of the scheme. The user had spent weeks building up accounts and buying up domains, then going after prominent blogging personalities. When the actual Parr showed up, the fake Parr started using the other sockpuppets to go after the real Parr, pushing him to buy the fake account.
The user took advantage of a disparity in the incomplete transition between X, formerly known as Twitter, and Bluesky, where a lot of real people are, but some prominent personalities have not yet shown up. And Bluesky, being put to the test, absolutely failed.
It took hours for the network to do something about the obvious extortion attempt. When the real Parr showed up, the fake Parr tried to make it seem like he was the real one. And Bluesky’s moderators … blocked the actual Parr, not the fake one. At this point, I was fully engaged in the mess, and the attempted extorter was not happy about it.
At one point, he wrote to me: “You inserted yourself into something that didn’t concern you at all, drama queen.”
After he did that, I inserted myself again—on a post where a Bluesky employee was announcing a new moderation feature specifically related to verification, in which I screenshotted an interaction on X with Parr. That did the trick—the fake Parr was finally banned soon after.
It's basically cybersquatting updated for social media. It seems to have been wrapped up within a day, but it took alerting people on Twitter and directly contacting Bsky higher-ups to clear it up. And it probably only worked because it was dragging bigger names like Matt Yglesias into the fight.
The writer summarizing it goes on to complain about Bsky moderation and support, though it doesn't seem like they acted less quickly than any other Big Tech safety and support team. He makes a fair point that Bsky might have created a problem that requires lawsuits to fix:
I'd argue this is yet another Twitter problem, repeated in Bsky but solved differently. Twitter solved this with the original version of the blue checkmark, which was a pain to get but was trustworthy once you did. That was destroyed when Milo Yiannopolous got de-checkmarked for calling a black actress ugly, because the crazies were treating that checkmark as a status symbol. Elon obliterated the checkmark with his changes, and now Twitter has a trust issue again.
Bsky seems like they're trying to automate the problem away, and it's not working very well. Or maybe it is, but it requires manual intervention by humans to recognize trust violations like this. I bet this kind of attack would be more successful against smaller names who don't have the pull to attract official notice.
just Reading a post
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2024
It is just going to be funny as fuck when they announce money making plans and they have an audience of people who hate other people rather than themselves making money. The same sort of people that will say we all should live commune life and trade beads and favours. Then have an endless list of ways you can give them cold hard cash linked every 5 seconds on their posts and profiles.
No matter the form. They are going to have to at least pay 1 bill.
That means selling out to either the ad industrial complex. The crypto bros or selling user data. All 3 options would cause a massive shit storm and fracturing.
If this was 10 years ago. You could have a lawless social media full of drama and still make at least something off them.
Now you got choke points of purity testing tranny communists as eyes of Saron.
They are eventually going to have to hit these self important fags with a ban at some stage. Probably some sort of shadow deboosting. to make sure they can't rally a mob.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2017
It's also possible btw that the protocol survives and never gets monetized. It's unlikely but still possible if the community figure out how to pay for just the servers and infrastructure shit.
They could even proactively do it now probably and cut out the commercial fundraising company from shit and basically make their own take on it that is sort of non profit.
just Reading a post
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2024
If this was just any social media clone we have seen, Yea you could find some way of keeping the lights on, Poast does it.
But that is not the goal of Bluesky. Their goal as stated after the election is to "Take down Elon's X". They need corpo cocks for that and corpo cocks need to be paid.
All the CEOs were shit talking about how they are going to take him out with their own social media.
The API being out there really means nothing. It will be mothballed on a github profile, if they fuck up their one shot. Even the FOSS fags don't like the stink of failure.
Talibama
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2024
They’re already looking into that.
So at protocol becomes, probably, some kind of wikimedia foundation level bullshit that doesn’t actually run an instance or answer to users.
Someone else can spin up a new “bluesky” and tell all blueskys original/pilot users “fuck you, I don’t care what you think.”
bluesky then gets gutted and turned into a cryptogrifter playground- because what all web3.0 players want is some kind of decentralized social media on a blockchain that’s compatible with their token or their blockchain. That’s the new captive audience. Get them not just into your walled garden but into your walled crypto economy.
Xitter wants this too which is why they applied in dozens of states to become a banking provider. [this is probably the real reason it’s important to stigmatize x and anyone who uses it as a “Nazi”- for anticompetitive reasons you’re not even thinking about yet. And fuck Xitter, too, but that doesn’t make this right or even legal.]
Facebook wanted to do Libera coin and were told to get fucked.
The problem with all three companies is, why would I ever deposit money somewhere that instabans me over something harmless that doesn’t appear to even run afoul of of any rules, forever and ever and ever where no human will ever review or appeal it or intervene ?
That’s what Dorsey wanted to see the end of, and why he left bluesky when he realized they weren’t interested in doing away with vindictive grudge ass Forever Bans against people.
Something that blueskys dipshit blue haired mob screams for all day and night. Their motivation is retaining their “clout”, which means they can have 20000 people to dilate at because they were there first, now when you join, good luck breaking 200-500 before someone finds a reason to ban you. And doesn’t matter if you have 20 or 2000- better vote for whoever the DNC dark horses in in 2028, 2032, 2036, and beyond no matter who it is and no matter what your opinion of them is, if you share that opinion you’ll be gone. Bluesky is already a sunk cost fallacy because you’re going to be ostracized and removed for sins you haven’t even committed yet.
Text
| |||
|
Text:
| pfraze 39 days ago | root | parent | next [–] Transferring to an independent org is what we're talking about now, yes. The backstory to PLC is that we picked up the DID standard and looked for an existing registry-method that would satisfy requirements¹. None of them really did. We then surveyed mechanisms for decentralized operation: DHTs, open blockchains, permissioned blockchains, and federated databases. Of them, the two blockchain variants seemed perhaps promising, but still premature since (as of 2022) you there's cost variability due to load and in some cases bad transaction latency (eg 10 minutes). We decided the best decision was to create PLC, which matches all of the requirements except for longterm meta governance. The way we designed it was to make the registry mechanics transferrable to a different protocol in the future, so that if for instance we decided (say) a DHT was suitable (it's not) we'd be able to use the same identifiers but change resolution and mutations to a new process. Then we started talking to other SMEs to get their take. Ultimately the solution that's gotten the most favorable response has been setting up an ICANN-style independent organization to operate it. This can be joined with a couple of interesting systems, such as mirrors which tail a certificate-transparency-style audit log, and which could even serve as transaction witnesses to indicate when the core registry might be rejecting updates ("write censorship"). What can I say, some things take time and stakeholder-building. Look up the history of DNS and Network Solutions Inc for a bit of a wild ride that people have forgotten about. One other thing I should point out is that the DID spec enables multiple registry methods. Atproto currently supports did:web, and if other methods show up which satisfy the requirements then we are interested. ¹ Secure against manipulation by the registry operators, longterm meta governance, highly available, reasonable transaction latency, reliably low cost that's not dogged by token speculation, low ecological impact. |
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2017
Yeah whoever is writing this knows what they're talking about and has a solid plan but the problem with a SPOF like this or any foundation etc is that people like Liz Fong Jones and many of the other characters will likely try to install themselves in a position of power.
It kind of puts bsky in an awkward position - they are right that DID shit is (or at least was 2 years ago) too immature to commit to, but now that they actually got users and those users have a clear bias/stance/expectation about things it will be very difficult for any non profit/foundation to launch with an impartial founding body (the same reason null doesn't give mod status to people who ask for it).
It's not entirely clear to me just based on this writing you provided what their exact plan is though but I know a thing or two in this area and it will likely not be easy sailing (even if the foundation has no real power to do stuff to the protocol). But I will say that the person who wrote that stuff is a few levels above me in knowledge of this specific area.
Actually it was just revealed that facebooks global currency shit had gone through basically almost of layers of government shit progressively but was killed at the last layer by some specific government fags because it would be "political suicide" - and that was just ot launch an initial pilot program. With trump administration that seems unlikely to ever happen again. Marc Andreesseen and some other tech people have been bringing up examples of it (debunking) and one of the Facebook people who was involved with that specific project came out of the woodwork and shared the story.
Talibama
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2024
@neger psykolog , pfrazee is one of the developers. Beaker Browser (RIP) was one of his original projects. [kind of aspired to be IPFS-like, he shut it down to take a job at bluesky and that link explains why he thinks the goals of the decentralized web community and his prior backers would be better accomplished , and faster , under atproto.]
He comments more about bsky planning and development on ycombinator/HN than I have ever really actually seen him do on bluesky. Which is a sign he believes in what he’s doing but either doesn’t have the kind of engagement he’s interested in on bsky or is just overwhelmed with thousands and thousands of seethes (way better name for their posts than “skeets” imo) on bluesky.
him and his supporters do seem to believe the decentralized web is for everyone. Paul has worked on this for the last decade, and it’s kind of insulting to be like “oh I created this because I got on bluesky and licked it FIRST” but anyway it makes a LOT of sense to detach the whole protocol from bluesky and its angry usermob. Especially if bluesky as a company keeps making misstep after misstep - or just cannot be divorced from its early users demanding to be treated like royalty - and needs to be reigned in.
It’s so fun spending your entire career being chained to the Internet backbone, e-commerce , routing, and switching , and then finding yourself literally not allowed on the fucking internet while 25 year olds hiss “I was here first.” If I knew then what I know now I’d have probably rm -rf’ed everything along with all the goddamn backups and aborted as much of the Internet as I could in its infancy.
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=pfraze
Couple edits so I don’t multi post here but,
Given blueskys behavior to date, it’s reasonable to be concerned that “continuity of identity” means “continuity of bans” on atproto.
Pfrazee acknowledges that this is the current effect of a ban from the bsky relay, and “this is why we have an organizational goal to get other independent relays running.”
Then there’s always the whole “what’s legal in the USA might be illegal in Germany,” thing, will I have Europe demanding my relay be delisted for something that pissed them off next?
On the fediverse people can and do ban CSAM servers and such. But they’ll also do some things like banning gab.com and then banning anyone else who will not defederate from gab.com
“Well but it’s gab” passed the sniff test in 2016, but does it now when X is barely any different ?
I’d like to see or hear how Paul would solve that.
As for the tranny menace, I have zero desire to interact with or “harass” them, I’d block every fucking one I saw personally, they came for *me* and that’s precisely why I’d block them all. I’d pre emptively search for the words transmisogyny , marginalized, and don’t worry your pretty little head you will never see or hear from me again. Unless you ban my fucking account and we all have to moderate/mute/block each other again.
He comments more about bsky planning and development on ycombinator/HN than I have ever really actually seen him do on bluesky. Which is a sign he believes in what he’s doing but either doesn’t have the kind of engagement he’s interested in on bsky or is just overwhelmed with thousands and thousands of seethes (way better name for their posts than “skeets” imo) on bluesky.
him and his supporters do seem to believe the decentralized web is for everyone. Paul has worked on this for the last decade, and it’s kind of insulting to be like “oh I created this because I got on bluesky and licked it FIRST” but anyway it makes a LOT of sense to detach the whole protocol from bluesky and its angry usermob. Especially if bluesky as a company keeps making misstep after misstep - or just cannot be divorced from its early users demanding to be treated like royalty - and needs to be reigned in.
It’s so fun spending your entire career being chained to the Internet backbone, e-commerce , routing, and switching , and then finding yourself literally not allowed on the fucking internet while 25 year olds hiss “I was here first.” If I knew then what I know now I’d have probably rm -rf’ed everything along with all the goddamn backups and aborted as much of the Internet as I could in its infancy.
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=pfraze
Couple edits so I don’t multi post here but,
Given blueskys behavior to date, it’s reasonable to be concerned that “continuity of identity” means “continuity of bans” on atproto.
Pfrazee acknowledges that this is the current effect of a ban from the bsky relay, and “this is why we have an organizational goal to get other independent relays running.”
Then there’s always the whole “what’s legal in the USA might be illegal in Germany,” thing, will I have Europe demanding my relay be delisted for something that pissed them off next?
On the fediverse people can and do ban CSAM servers and such. But they’ll also do some things like banning gab.com and then banning anyone else who will not defederate from gab.com
“Well but it’s gab” passed the sniff test in 2016, but does it now when X is barely any different ?
I’d like to see or hear how Paul would solve that.
As for the tranny menace, I have zero desire to interact with or “harass” them, I’d block every fucking one I saw personally, they came for *me* and that’s precisely why I’d block them all. I’d pre emptively search for the words transmisogyny , marginalized, and don’t worry your pretty little head you will never see or hear from me again. Unless you ban my fucking account and we all have to moderate/mute/block each other again.
Last edited:
Talibama
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2024
sorry for the multi post but I just found pfrazee (blog) shouting out The Tyranny of Structurelessness (feminist drivel) which captures the arc of social media presciently enough, in which it has moved from being about “consciousness raising” to “task oriented” (get so and so elected, consoom ads and products, stifle and ban enemies or people who make advertisers seethe etc).
>The end of consciousness-raising leaves people with no place to go, and the lack of structure leaves them with no way of getting there.
tl;dr it proposed that you may need a small homogeneous and unstructured group
just to “prove that something works.” So that’s how you end up with a bunch of Crash Test Trannies on an invite only system like bluesky was.
But that,
>People from widely different backgrounds may provide richness to a consciousness-raising group where each can learn from the others' experience, but too great a diversity among members of a task-oriented group means only that they continually misunderstand each other. Such diverse people interpret words and actions differently. They have different expectations about each other's behavior and judge the results according to different criteria. If everyone knows everyone else well enough to understand the nuances, these can be accommodated. Usually, they only lead to confusion and endless hours spent straightening out conflicts no one ever thought would arise.
(Except, literally everyone here thought they would arise …….)
They hate kiwifarms, which still allows room for play, dissent, consciousness raising, and some degree of freedom while being structured overseen and mod’ded by the invisible hand. All the other platforms worked just fine when they allowed all of this too.
It’s just that no one had anywhere to go - other than being corralled into their task oriented lot in life, or banned if they resisted the task - as soon as the feminists faggots and negroes all pulled the rug and decided that elevation and consciousness raising were over now. Sorry guys, playtime is over , Patrice Cullors needs another fucking house. We need a billion dollars to launder and don’t fucking care who it hurts or what it breaks.
Um, looks like we weren’t grown up enough for that yet, hey? Also the whole “kill whitey” thing didn’t help along with “from now on you will only talk about my oppression, your struggles don’t exist, you can’t share about them, I don’t want to hear about them.”
The whole point of The Tyranny of Structurelessness is that it’s easy to get “women” (really anyone anymore, men don’t mind this as much 40+ years later) to talk intimately about their problems in the initial phase when the environment is a level playing ground and a safe place to do so.
See it works?
However they yank the rug and now men can no longer participate. Men of a certain sexuality or skin color can no longer participate. Men of the correct sexuality or skin color can no longer participate if they don’t support the candidate, or post things that please the advertiser, or if they think the task is bullshit and they just want to talk about shit with friends.
Oh no, it didn’t work, everything fell apart, why is this happening?
Cause a bunch of fucking 25 year olds don’t respect or listen to their elders or care what someone wrote 40 years ago.
And whatever places you did have to go are stigmatized (gab, KF, 4chan, soon to be X.)
Conversations still thrive in small groups and small forums. They go to Big Social to die now.
>The end of consciousness-raising leaves people with no place to go, and the lack of structure leaves them with no way of getting there.
tl;dr it proposed that you may need a small homogeneous and unstructured group
just to “prove that something works.” So that’s how you end up with a bunch of Crash Test Trannies on an invite only system like bluesky was.
But that,
>People from widely different backgrounds may provide richness to a consciousness-raising group where each can learn from the others' experience, but too great a diversity among members of a task-oriented group means only that they continually misunderstand each other. Such diverse people interpret words and actions differently. They have different expectations about each other's behavior and judge the results according to different criteria. If everyone knows everyone else well enough to understand the nuances, these can be accommodated. Usually, they only lead to confusion and endless hours spent straightening out conflicts no one ever thought would arise.
(Except, literally everyone here thought they would arise …….)
They hate kiwifarms, which still allows room for play, dissent, consciousness raising, and some degree of freedom while being structured overseen and mod’ded by the invisible hand. All the other platforms worked just fine when they allowed all of this too.
It’s just that no one had anywhere to go - other than being corralled into their task oriented lot in life, or banned if they resisted the task - as soon as the feminists faggots and negroes all pulled the rug and decided that elevation and consciousness raising were over now. Sorry guys, playtime is over , Patrice Cullors needs another fucking house. We need a billion dollars to launder and don’t fucking care who it hurts or what it breaks.
Um, looks like we weren’t grown up enough for that yet, hey? Also the whole “kill whitey” thing didn’t help along with “from now on you will only talk about my oppression, your struggles don’t exist, you can’t share about them, I don’t want to hear about them.”
The whole point of The Tyranny of Structurelessness is that it’s easy to get “women” (really anyone anymore, men don’t mind this as much 40+ years later) to talk intimately about their problems in the initial phase when the environment is a level playing ground and a safe place to do so.
See it works?
However they yank the rug and now men can no longer participate. Men of a certain sexuality or skin color can no longer participate. Men of the correct sexuality or skin color can no longer participate if they don’t support the candidate, or post things that please the advertiser, or if they think the task is bullshit and they just want to talk about shit with friends.
Oh no, it didn’t work, everything fell apart, why is this happening?
Cause a bunch of fucking 25 year olds don’t respect or listen to their elders or care what someone wrote 40 years ago.
And whatever places you did have to go are stigmatized (gab, KF, 4chan, soon to be X.)
Conversations still thrive in small groups and small forums. They go to Big Social to die now.
Attachments
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2024
It would help people have a common language if they stopped dedicating so much energy to changing definitions and words. People could, and did, all agree on how to define woman or man until the very recent past. Nobody was helped by going from saying negro to black to African American to whatever it is now or next but we did get a bunch of dumb fights about word choice. We could just…stop that and speak the same language we all know the words to.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2024
Its just jews playing word games obviously its not meant to help you