- Joined
- Mar 5, 2025
everything is fascist to these people
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
- Oct 6, 2016
Massive furry sigh of relief as they realize that their galleries will be auto-nuked in 3 years when brapsky goes under.
Might nuke a few times in the meantime just to be safe though.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2021
Guardian writer Peter Walker got bullied into amending one of his articles to reflect facts rather than his version of events. He went to Bluesky to have a cope about it and even there is getting bullied.
grapeshark77
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2021
People were using "the girls are fighting" meme for the Elon and Trump stuff. Except on Bluesky, where no fun is allowed. (This is only a small sample)
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2021
The girls are fighting.
Meanwhile, these girls (men) are whining about retard shit.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2024
bouquetnine
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 19, 2024
"We are disgusting people and they started using OUR words we use to describe our habits to normies and they are disgusted!"
Alternatively: "It's bad when THEY use those words, no matter how accurate they are."
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
Imgur is one of the most aggressively far-left websites out there and this fat faggot is whining about it.
On an unrelated note, posting political rants on the same profile you fill with your disgusting fetishes should be punished with death.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2024
But then it would be more difficult for leftists to make fools of themselves by bleating "bash the fash!" right above a post about diaper drawer organization.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
Porn addicts are the lowest of the low. Even worse than food or gambling addicts. You can't even say that they're just the same as a cokehead or drunk, because they're actually beyond the maximum level of sick that a substance user can be by virtue of the fact that they're all online crying persecution and claiming that their addiction is some sort of human right. It's one of the sickest things I've seen in my lifetime.
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2024
Did that shit actually do anything? People on the Farms got into the hype when it was introduced but I haven't heard a peep about it affecting anything since. The only thing significant was making Lolicons mad.
The Fatriarchy
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2018
Is this not a noble purpose in and of itself?
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2024
Yeah but I just expected more to happen, given the buzz and noise surrounding it. Since then, I haven't heard a peep about it.
behindyourightnow
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 17, 2021
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2024
To this faggot nothing isn't fascist unless they let him wank to horse rape porn.
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2022
WaPo published an opinion piece about Bluesky:
Article/Archive
The most notable thing about the article (so far) is where the author says, "It’s now down about 50 percent, and the decline shows no sign of leveling out."
Article/Archive
Ever since Elon Musk bought Twitter, changed the social media site’s name to X and altered its moderation policies, progressives have been hunting for a substitute. To judge how their search is going, consider a recent item from Politico’s Playbook, which notes that “a number of prominent commentators, experts and groups” are pledging to post on other platforms before X.
“The ‘X-last’ strategy,” says Playbook, “led by Indivisible and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, is an effort to shift discourse from Elon Musk’s platform to Bluesky.”
Note that they’re not demanding that people stop posting to X. They’re just asking them to post a bit less. It’s certainly inventive, but a little wistful, as though they’re aware how unlikely this is to work.
A recent Pew Research Center analysis found that many news influencers have Bluesky accounts (I’m one of them) but that, like me, two-thirds post irregularly. By contrast, more than 80 percent still post to X on most days. Engagement on Bluesky appears to have peaked in mid-November. It’s now down about 50 percent, and the decline shows no sign of leveling out.
This is the tyranny of social media network effects. When a network grows, each new user makes it more valuable to every other user, enabling exponential growth. When the users start leaving, however, those network effects also hasten the decline.
Nor is this process likely to be halted by organizing your pals and exhorting people to be better, or getting progressive writers to post to Bluesky before X. Yes, seeding platforms early with a small group of influential individuals can help it grow, as other users flock to be around them. But when that movement is organized by liberal groups, it’s most likely to appeal to folks who are very interested in progressive politics — which is to say, the other people who have already moved to Bluesky.
You can’t blame them for trying, I suppose. But wait, actually, I can. Because even if this works, moving progressives off X into Bluesky’s beautiful blue bubble isn’t a great idea for the movement. This effort isn’t just a doomed attempt to re-create the old Twitter. It’s likely to sap already-waning progressive influence and make the movement itself less politically effective.
Consider why progressive groups are so eager to hasten the demise of X and move their users to other platforms. One reason is simply that they are mad at Musk for supporting Donald Trump and allowing the alt-right to flourish on X. But another is that they are trying to duplicate what used to be an incredible platform for liberal influence.
For roughly a decade, Twitter hosted what is lightheartedly called the “national conversation” on issues of the day, particularly social justice and public health. Twitter never had that many users, compared with Instagram or Facebook. But it had a big group of influential users — politicians, policymakers, journalists and academics, all of whom were engaged in a 24/7 conversation about politics and current events.
That was a boon to progressives, who wielded outsize influence on the platform because they were early adopters who outnumbered the conservatives. They were also better organized and better networked, and had the sympathy of Twitter’s professional-class employees, who proved increasingly susceptible to liberals’ demands for tighter moderation policies on things such as using male pronouns to refer to a transgender woman.
Moderation suppressed conservative users and stories that hurt the left — most notoriously, the story about Hunter Biden’s laptop, which Twitter throttled as “disinformation” in the run-up to the 2020 election. Of course, progressive Twitter mobs also policed the discourse themselves, securing high-profile firings that made many people afraid to cross them.
Thus, that national conversation ended up skewed toward liberal views, creating the illusion that their ideas were more popular than they actually were. That’s a major reason that institutions went all-in on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, and why the 2020 Democratic primary field moved so far to the left that Kamala Harris was still struggling to backtrack four years later. All that changed when Musk bought Twitter.
It’s not surprising that progressives want to return to the good old days. But it’s not working, and I’m skeptical it ever will.
The people who have migrated to Bluesky tend to be those who feel the most visceral disgust for Musk and Trump, plus a smattering of those who are merely curious and another smattering who are tired of the AI slop and unregenerate racism that increasingly pollutes their X feeds. Because the Musk and Trump haters are the largest and most passionate group, the result is something of an echo chamber where it’s hard to get positive engagement unless you’re saying things progressives want to hear — and where the negative engagement on things they don’t want to hear can be intense. That’s true even for content that isn’t obviously political: Ethan Mollick, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School who studies AI, recently announced that he’ll be limiting his Bluesky posting because AI discussions on the platform are too “fraught.”
All this is pretty off-putting for folks who aren’t already rather progressive, and that creates a threefold problem for the ones who dream of getting the old band back together. Most obviously, it makes it hard for the platform to build a large enough userbase for the company to become financially self-sustaining, or for liberals to amass the influence they wielded on old Twitter. There, they accumulated power by shaping the contours of a conversation that included a lot of non-progressives. On Bluesky, they’re mostly talking among themselves.
One can say the same about Truth Social, of course, but that’s not an example the left should be eager to emulate. Segregating yourself in a political silo amplifies any political movement’s worst tendencies, giving free rein to your most toxic adherents and cutting you off from vital feedback about, say, your unpopular tariff policies.
Something similar has happened on Bluesky. The nasty fringe has become even nastier: A Bluesky technical adviser recently felt the need to clarify that “The ‘let’s tell anyone we don’t like to kill themselves’ crowd are not welcome here” because left-wing trolls kept urging people who disagreed with them to commit suicide. And without the leavening influence of their opponents, Bluesky discourse appears even more censorious and doctrinaire than what progressives were saying on old Twitter.
When you never hear from the other side, it’s pretty easy to talk yourself into a political dead end. That might be enough for the political dead-enders. But it’s a terrible mistake for any political movement that actually hopes to rack up some durable victories.
“The ‘X-last’ strategy,” says Playbook, “led by Indivisible and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, is an effort to shift discourse from Elon Musk’s platform to Bluesky.”
Note that they’re not demanding that people stop posting to X. They’re just asking them to post a bit less. It’s certainly inventive, but a little wistful, as though they’re aware how unlikely this is to work.
A recent Pew Research Center analysis found that many news influencers have Bluesky accounts (I’m one of them) but that, like me, two-thirds post irregularly. By contrast, more than 80 percent still post to X on most days. Engagement on Bluesky appears to have peaked in mid-November. It’s now down about 50 percent, and the decline shows no sign of leveling out.
This is the tyranny of social media network effects. When a network grows, each new user makes it more valuable to every other user, enabling exponential growth. When the users start leaving, however, those network effects also hasten the decline.
Nor is this process likely to be halted by organizing your pals and exhorting people to be better, or getting progressive writers to post to Bluesky before X. Yes, seeding platforms early with a small group of influential individuals can help it grow, as other users flock to be around them. But when that movement is organized by liberal groups, it’s most likely to appeal to folks who are very interested in progressive politics — which is to say, the other people who have already moved to Bluesky.
You can’t blame them for trying, I suppose. But wait, actually, I can. Because even if this works, moving progressives off X into Bluesky’s beautiful blue bubble isn’t a great idea for the movement. This effort isn’t just a doomed attempt to re-create the old Twitter. It’s likely to sap already-waning progressive influence and make the movement itself less politically effective.
Consider why progressive groups are so eager to hasten the demise of X and move their users to other platforms. One reason is simply that they are mad at Musk for supporting Donald Trump and allowing the alt-right to flourish on X. But another is that they are trying to duplicate what used to be an incredible platform for liberal influence.
For roughly a decade, Twitter hosted what is lightheartedly called the “national conversation” on issues of the day, particularly social justice and public health. Twitter never had that many users, compared with Instagram or Facebook. But it had a big group of influential users — politicians, policymakers, journalists and academics, all of whom were engaged in a 24/7 conversation about politics and current events.
That was a boon to progressives, who wielded outsize influence on the platform because they were early adopters who outnumbered the conservatives. They were also better organized and better networked, and had the sympathy of Twitter’s professional-class employees, who proved increasingly susceptible to liberals’ demands for tighter moderation policies on things such as using male pronouns to refer to a transgender woman.
Moderation suppressed conservative users and stories that hurt the left — most notoriously, the story about Hunter Biden’s laptop, which Twitter throttled as “disinformation” in the run-up to the 2020 election. Of course, progressive Twitter mobs also policed the discourse themselves, securing high-profile firings that made many people afraid to cross them.
Thus, that national conversation ended up skewed toward liberal views, creating the illusion that their ideas were more popular than they actually were. That’s a major reason that institutions went all-in on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, and why the 2020 Democratic primary field moved so far to the left that Kamala Harris was still struggling to backtrack four years later. All that changed when Musk bought Twitter.
It’s not surprising that progressives want to return to the good old days. But it’s not working, and I’m skeptical it ever will.
The people who have migrated to Bluesky tend to be those who feel the most visceral disgust for Musk and Trump, plus a smattering of those who are merely curious and another smattering who are tired of the AI slop and unregenerate racism that increasingly pollutes their X feeds. Because the Musk and Trump haters are the largest and most passionate group, the result is something of an echo chamber where it’s hard to get positive engagement unless you’re saying things progressives want to hear — and where the negative engagement on things they don’t want to hear can be intense. That’s true even for content that isn’t obviously political: Ethan Mollick, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School who studies AI, recently announced that he’ll be limiting his Bluesky posting because AI discussions on the platform are too “fraught.”
All this is pretty off-putting for folks who aren’t already rather progressive, and that creates a threefold problem for the ones who dream of getting the old band back together. Most obviously, it makes it hard for the platform to build a large enough userbase for the company to become financially self-sustaining, or for liberals to amass the influence they wielded on old Twitter. There, they accumulated power by shaping the contours of a conversation that included a lot of non-progressives. On Bluesky, they’re mostly talking among themselves.
One can say the same about Truth Social, of course, but that’s not an example the left should be eager to emulate. Segregating yourself in a political silo amplifies any political movement’s worst tendencies, giving free rein to your most toxic adherents and cutting you off from vital feedback about, say, your unpopular tariff policies.
Something similar has happened on Bluesky. The nasty fringe has become even nastier: A Bluesky technical adviser recently felt the need to clarify that “The ‘let’s tell anyone we don’t like to kill themselves’ crowd are not welcome here” because left-wing trolls kept urging people who disagreed with them to commit suicide. And without the leavening influence of their opponents, Bluesky discourse appears even more censorious and doctrinaire than what progressives were saying on old Twitter.
When you never hear from the other side, it’s pretty easy to talk yourself into a political dead end. That might be enough for the political dead-enders. But it’s a terrible mistake for any political movement that actually hopes to rack up some durable victories.
The most notable thing about the article (so far) is where the author says, "It’s now down about 50 percent, and the decline shows no sign of leveling out."
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2024
All these old cronies are one foot in the grave, why the fuck are they on BlueSky
This is the people calling you misogynistic—wait two weeks, they'll be in the grave and you'll be back shitposting.
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2022
Tehweenus / Croix S. Almer / CroixAlmer / Jackalope / Silas Brett / Silas A Brett
DOB: June 23rd 1991, 33 year old furry artist from Portsmouth, Rhode Island. Married to Cameron Brett / Cameron Edmond Brett. Known for starting the Goots meme on Twitter in 2022.
Bluesky, A
Youtube, A
Twitch, A
Tumblr, A
FurAffinity, (private)
Furry Network, A
Wikifur page about him, Lists only his full name.
Weasyl, A
DeviantART, A
Itch.io, A
Ko-fi, A
Patreon, A
Paypal, A
Origin of Goots, A
Steam, A
His husband:
Cambertain / therearenoidsleft / Cameron Brett / Cameron Edmond Brett
Born May 15th 1995, 30 year old wannabe game dev who went to Bristol Community College.
Facebook, A
Steam, A
Email;
tehweenus@gmail.com
rory.romance@gmail.com
76 E Main Rd, Portsmouth, Rhode Island, 02871
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2024
Bloody hell what a minging tard freak. On e621 a user had uploaded cub art he drew that he requested a janny take down. DFE from Pixiv and Inkbunny.
Kiddy diddler.
Kiddy diddler.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2022
I always think back to this one skeet from Dril and how much shit he caught for it:
The way I see it is that X is like an old, shitty metal playground. The equipment seems like it's going to fall apart at any moment and kids are fighting in the mud all the time, but it has the most fun equipment; super tall slides, a merry go round that goes as fast as you can spin it, and a few of those spinny things you can stand on and twist around until you get sick and throw up.
Meanwhile bluesky is the newest playground on the block with all-new super safe equipment, but when you get there it's all padded and nothing is more than four feet off the ground. The swings can't twist around and if you try to swing high enough, a bunch of security guards descend on you and pull you off and lecture you on how unsafe you're being. Sure it's "safer" and you don't hear kids throwing around cuss words, but it's fucking boring. Even the biggest hugbox proponents will eventually get bored and want to go back to the place that's less safe but more fun.