deleted by creator
Bsky hates its users
🎻
I strongly doubt they were banned for posting a police report.
PSA: Sharing that information was almost certainly a GDPR violation in the EU. It may also have been a criminal offense under German law (§128a StGB).
Please gtfo with those nasty facts. This is Lemmy.
Sharing publicly available information is a GDPR violation? Wouldn’t that be on the person who originally made the info public.
Personal data in official documents which police reports falls under are explicitly excluded by article 86.
Not quite. Such official documents may be published by the government, but only if provided by law. It doesn’t mean that the data may be used by others.
EU data protection activists are fighting against such transparency rules. I’m thinking of Noyb’s lawsuit against the Swedish government, in particular. Sweden has a very strong tradition of transparency.
That German law was explicitly made to criminalize such lists compiled from public data. If the context suggests that the information is meant to enable illegal harm to the people, then it’s criminal to publish the information. In the German understanding, that is fighting Nazis because Nazis create such lists of their enemies.
I stopped using Bluesky because they have a huuuge bad actors spreading right-wing talking points problem
That place came and went for me in a matter of days. It’s yet another shithole compromised by billionaires. There is a never ending supply of Americans who when contacted with $$$$$$$$$ offers, take them to sell out our Democracy.
THESE people should be the first to wear blindfolds when finding out their sentence.
The rewards of legally unnecessary moderation: not the first unpopular incident of censorship by bluesky.
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
I don’t think sharing publicly available documents constitutes doxxing
Even if it is, doxxing nazis is a good thing.
I agree. But the original post was claiming that Bluesky is a Nazi sympathing right wing extremist supporting organization. If BS just has a blanket TOS that is enforced consistently, that’s way different.
That’s like saying you got arrested for making a sign that says “Fuck Nazis!” and then it turns out you were just spray painting it on random buildings.
Posting a link is in no way similar to vandalism.
Hey! You’re right! Good thing that’s not what the similie was trying to compare!
Yeah under a general “no graffiti tolerance” rule for example
Oh no, surprise, censorship on a centralized platform. No one saw that coming.
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.
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.
LOL what did you expect them to do, exactly? They can either comply with the law or be fined to death. Those are their choices.
deleted by creator
Well, I expected them to capitulate while shuddering and moaning and begging for more, because that’s what they love, but I would expect a not-shit company to not lead the pack at the very least.
What difference does that make?
You’re right, there’s no harm to complying in advance. Let’s do it!
There literally isn’t.
complying in advance is incredibly dangerous
How so?
I’m gonna state a new law, it needs you to rip one of your nails off and send it for age verification so you better start ripping it off
Huh?
Lol imagine being such a fucken sycophant you post this garbage 😂
“This garbage”? You mean stating literal facts of reality?
Cant help but notice that you didn’t answer the question.
Fuck bluesky.
Anyone using it over Mastodon to protest twitter is a moron.
I use both, more voices against shit like this is good. I just recently logged into both accounts to protest Barri Weiss and her Trump ball licking.
Obay but can I use mastodon in a way that let’s me choke on corporate dick? Because choking on corporate dick is kind of my favorite thing. Whole reason inhere.
I thought Mastodon was dead tbh
like when you looked into it you didn’t find much you were interested in, or like the people you were interested in have left that way of interacting with the fediverse? between the threadiverse and the microblog portion of the fediverse, we are by far engaging with the less popular and populous way of interacting with the fediverse
Back to LinkedIn with you!
There’s a really fucked up reason why I couldn’t make a linked in account if I wanted to.
elaborate
It really is.
It belongs Meta, right? Zuck has no spine.
Meta doesnt own Bluesky, you’re thinking of Threads.
no that was in fact the Bluesky CEO. See: https://techcrunch.com/2025/10/05/waffles-eat-bluesky/
I know.
The person im replying to was implying bluesky was owned by Meta.
wow if we can’t trust me jack dorsey who can we even trust anymore‽
did anyone actually trusted jack dorsey?
more than you’d think…
bsky not run by jack
Jay sucks too all on her own.
^ this is an important detail people seem to miss
It quickly became clear that users understood something Bluesky didn’t: Bluesky couldn’t code away social problems on the app. At some point, Bluesky’s leadership would have to do something about users who were openly racist, transphobic, misogynist, or otherwise abusive.
Nevertheless, the CEO’s solution was something she called “compostable moderation,” a skeet labelling system that users with the financial resources and technical know-how could develop and deploy on their own little corner of Bluesky. In practice, this was a way to outsource responsibility. Rather than Bluesky taking accountability for hate speech or death threats, users were expected to moderate themselves
…
In short, Bluesky’s moderation is not neutral; it is selective. The platform is quick to silence, censor, or ban users it finds inconvenient or embarrassing, yet consistently unwilling to act against hate speech, misinformation, or other antisocial behaviour.
It amazes me how babylike some adult humans understanding of the world really is, did they NOT expect that to happen? That is precisely what I figured would happen and I am no genius, it is just common sense?
Publicly available police reports.
I’m completely against doxxing. But there were public reports. That’s censorship.
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.
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.
can always come up with rationalizations but the fact remains there are other platforms that will not “cost optimize” it away.
Those platforms are irrelevant. Yes, I realise I’m using an irrelevant platform but my priorities are elsewhere.
That doesn’t change the aspect of it being censorship. It just means that a risk adverse company is risk adverse to the degree that they will employ censorship to maintain that aversion to risk. At the end of the day, it’s censorship. The rationale for why they’ve employed it is notwithstanding.
Censorship can be good and ban on personal information sharing prevents witch hunts. Reddit banned it only after it resulted in dead people which is too late in my book.
Your example is people randomly sharing information. That is not the same as a Government entity after following the process outlined in the law, releasing information related to that Government action. We know who is awarded contracts, we know where tax payer money is going to, and so on because of disclosure requirements by Government entities.
When an elected entity has acted in a manner accordance to law, that action ought to reasonably disclose the subject of that action. That’s not to say 100% it always must be this way, but this is why we allow the public to comment on changes to those disclosure requirements.
I would like for you to understand, there’s a very fundamental difference between “random people” and “people via a method given power to rule over other people.” That fundamental difference between the two is key to the point here.
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.
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.
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
Your solution doesn’t fully eliminate risk on it’s own and addressing that costs money - that’s about as far as a rational company has to go. They know going nuclear and banning all personal info means not having to deal with it at all and it’s a niche thing that will affect negligible amount of users. Bean counting is the core of meeting regulatory and legal requirements in case of for-profit organisations.
