Seems “politics makes strange bedfellows” was inspired by a line in Shakespeare's The Tempest. So I'm surprised you suggest that Old Timey R-vs-D politics matters but a modern assault on individual identity by Teh Hard MAGA Right isn't what dominates many people's feelings about gender issues.
I am one of those people. The facts about gender are what they are, and I have no particular insight into them that ordinary science and history haven't spelled out. (E.g., that medicos somewhat arbitrarily ascribe or conforme a large fraction of newborns are into fitting our binary worldview, and that there are multiple spectra of physiology and emotions at play that the whole world, rather casually / unseriously, likewise pretend are permanently shoehorned into exactly one of the two pigeonholes.
It is unsurprising that conservatives would object to new science, new understandings of psychology and new social movements associated with gender issues. But that doesn't make it useful to advance their points while ignoring the importance of the new views
It’s not arbitrary to identify which sex a baby is. Our view of sex is binary because sex is binary. Genderism is not science, it is a fantastical belief in an unknowable and invisible essence. It is a stupid and incoherent neoreligion that is thankfully already dying.
Bluesky has some superficial attractions over Twitter: no advertisements and no involuntary exposure to the views of Elon Musk or those his algorithms and user pricing structure promote. But it still doesn’t have anything like the scale or range of Twitter users, including institutional users and primary news sources. And in addition to both the insufferable self-congratulation and the vituperative condemnatory tendency of some of its users, I think it enables and funnels abuse through its public blocklists. Many of their descriptions reflect the worldview of a scatological 8 year old, but still, in a better online world they wouldn’t exist or be visible to everyone
Both blocking and blocklists are a problem, as far as I am concerned. Blocking is a public act, which means that if a person were to have a preponderance of one type of person in their list of blocked accounts, then that could be used to harass them no matter why those people were blocked.
Block lists are problematic because they frequently use the technique of blocking anyone who's friends with $bad_person, which is a poor heuristic for pre-emptive blocking. There are many reasons someone might be 'friends' with someone, including needing to for work.
I though we'd been through the problems with guilt by association in the last century, but apparently a lot of people need a refresher.
Block list names, along with labels, can also be libellous. If you're put on a list called "paedos" or "anti-semites" then that could be argued to be legally actionable, depending on what country you're in.
Yes on all those points - I think they really are a lazy way to deal with the rough and tumble of a social network. I think Bluesky is already worse for it because people don't have to think. They just block.
It’s the defamatory descriptions on the public blocklists which are the worst built in feature of Bluesky, to my perception. I hope someone whose reputation is susceptible of serious harm from them will legally challenge them one day. For everyone else, they’re merely unpleasant in a playground fashion. And there’s a divided perception of the site between people who only ever are added to anodyne lists called “my favourite commentators” and the like, and those who have seen this other side of it
Too much social media analysis treats blacklists as if they are intended to ONLY be some sort of personal management, but not considering the usages as simply one part of an overall suppression campaign.
I'm intrigued by the way his articles are claimed be "violations of Bluesky Community Guidelines", but all the literally murderous comments about how he should be killed are presumably not violations. I know this is a common point, sometimes fairly clearly made in various "Code Of Conduct" details or similar. But it's rare to see it demonstrated in such a blatant manner.
Regarding Wright's point, sometimes one person just becomes a lightning-rod for hatred, in a process which feeds on itself. Yes, they're usually in-group members, and that's a factor as explored above. But it's much more than that - there's effects, for example, where the person is considered "safe" to attack. Notably, for one, that they can't or won't personally blast back at the attackers. I think it's really quite a complicated process, with many counter-intuitive aspects.
Yes, I think a social scientist could have a field day just with this little slice. The threats are _obviously_ violations of TOS. Wright’s point that he - while perhaps not as famous (or notorious) to that group - doesn’t get anything like the same level of hatred is a good one. It’s one of the most amazing group dynamics I’ve seen in ages.
And of course it would be hilarious if those people calling the moderator a paedophile and calling for murder were then to be suspended. At this point big slices of American online life are hard to distinguish from 4chan trolling circa 2012.
Hmmm - I think it may be too early to jump to conclusions, but I might be wrong. We'll see over the coming months. I intend to enjoy it while it lasts, at least.
Interesting.
Seems “politics makes strange bedfellows” was inspired by a line in Shakespeare's The Tempest. So I'm surprised you suggest that Old Timey R-vs-D politics matters but a modern assault on individual identity by Teh Hard MAGA Right isn't what dominates many people's feelings about gender issues.
I am one of those people. The facts about gender are what they are, and I have no particular insight into them that ordinary science and history haven't spelled out. (E.g., that medicos somewhat arbitrarily ascribe or conforme a large fraction of newborns are into fitting our binary worldview, and that there are multiple spectra of physiology and emotions at play that the whole world, rather casually / unseriously, likewise pretend are permanently shoehorned into exactly one of the two pigeonholes.
It is unsurprising that conservatives would object to new science, new understandings of psychology and new social movements associated with gender issues. But that doesn't make it useful to advance their points while ignoring the importance of the new views
It’s not arbitrary to identify which sex a baby is. Our view of sex is binary because sex is binary. Genderism is not science, it is a fantastical belief in an unknowable and invisible essence. It is a stupid and incoherent neoreligion that is thankfully already dying.
Bluesky has some superficial attractions over Twitter: no advertisements and no involuntary exposure to the views of Elon Musk or those his algorithms and user pricing structure promote. But it still doesn’t have anything like the scale or range of Twitter users, including institutional users and primary news sources. And in addition to both the insufferable self-congratulation and the vituperative condemnatory tendency of some of its users, I think it enables and funnels abuse through its public blocklists. Many of their descriptions reflect the worldview of a scatological 8 year old, but still, in a better online world they wouldn’t exist or be visible to everyone
Blocklists are an interesting phenomenon - will have a think about them.
Both blocking and blocklists are a problem, as far as I am concerned. Blocking is a public act, which means that if a person were to have a preponderance of one type of person in their list of blocked accounts, then that could be used to harass them no matter why those people were blocked.
Block lists are problematic because they frequently use the technique of blocking anyone who's friends with $bad_person, which is a poor heuristic for pre-emptive blocking. There are many reasons someone might be 'friends' with someone, including needing to for work.
I though we'd been through the problems with guilt by association in the last century, but apparently a lot of people need a refresher.
Block list names, along with labels, can also be libellous. If you're put on a list called "paedos" or "anti-semites" then that could be argued to be legally actionable, depending on what country you're in.
Yes on all those points - I think they really are a lazy way to deal with the rough and tumble of a social network. I think Bluesky is already worse for it because people don't have to think. They just block.
I suppose blocking without thinking is better than leaping straight to outraged abuse.
Except they're doing both - the outraged abuse comes from behind the blocks, aimed at people who are blocked.
It’s the defamatory descriptions on the public blocklists which are the worst built in feature of Bluesky, to my perception. I hope someone whose reputation is susceptible of serious harm from them will legally challenge them one day. For everyone else, they’re merely unpleasant in a playground fashion. And there’s a divided perception of the site between people who only ever are added to anodyne lists called “my favourite commentators” and the like, and those who have seen this other side of it
Too much social media analysis treats blacklists as if they are intended to ONLY be some sort of personal management, but not considering the usages as simply one part of an overall suppression campaign.
Yeah, fair point!
A reminder that we are closer to atavism than we realize, or are comfortable acknowledging.
I'm intrigued by the way his articles are claimed be "violations of Bluesky Community Guidelines", but all the literally murderous comments about how he should be killed are presumably not violations. I know this is a common point, sometimes fairly clearly made in various "Code Of Conduct" details or similar. But it's rare to see it demonstrated in such a blatant manner.
Regarding Wright's point, sometimes one person just becomes a lightning-rod for hatred, in a process which feeds on itself. Yes, they're usually in-group members, and that's a factor as explored above. But it's much more than that - there's effects, for example, where the person is considered "safe" to attack. Notably, for one, that they can't or won't personally blast back at the attackers. I think it's really quite a complicated process, with many counter-intuitive aspects.
Yes, I think a social scientist could have a field day just with this little slice. The threats are _obviously_ violations of TOS. Wright’s point that he - while perhaps not as famous (or notorious) to that group - doesn’t get anything like the same level of hatred is a good one. It’s one of the most amazing group dynamics I’ve seen in ages.
And of course it would be hilarious if those people calling the moderator a paedophile and calling for murder were then to be suspended. At this point big slices of American online life are hard to distinguish from 4chan trolling circa 2012.
Hmmm - I think it may be too early to jump to conclusions, but I might be wrong. We'll see over the coming months. I intend to enjoy it while it lasts, at least.