320
Bluesky continues to soar
(techcrunch.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024
320 points (94.2% liked)
Fediverse
28468 readers
187 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Let me clarify so I understand your position
I said why I don't use Bluesky. I didn't say it shouldn't exist, or that other people shouldn't use it. I didn't pass judgement on people who do use it, or suggest that their having a different opinion on how to deal with bigotry is an issue. I simply said why I don't use it
You then insisted that I am the problem with democracy, despite you being the person insisting that everyone has to do things your preferred way?
Do I understand your position correctly?
Sort of. Essentially I am saying that in a democracy we need to talk to each other, and sticking one's fingers in one's ears and chanting "lalalala I can't hear you" seems like a poor way to go about that. These people can vote too. Like it or not, you have an interest in understanding what makes them tick and what might help them to see the world in a way more conducive to you.
That doesn't happen on bluesky either though. The moderation approach on bluesky means that people can control who they see, and who can interact with them. So people can still remove bigots from their timeline.
I also take issue with your insistence that bigots have the right to be bigoted and spread hate, and that their targets are somehow in the wrong for not wanting to be exposed to that hate.
Assuming that "bigots" is not a synonym for "anyone I disagree with", then fair enough.
My underlying point is that technology is making it very easy to wall ourselves off into comfortable echo chambers. Some are even calling that "safety". From my understanding of history, this looks like an obviously slippery and dangerous slope to be on.
But if are talking about what most of your fellow citizens would also identify as "bigots", then fair enough.
Why would it be?
Your experience is different to mine. I wish I could wall myself off from people who want to remove my rights and target me with hate, but I've yet to find a way of doing that.
Well this is at least honest!
Perhaps it's a personality thing. Perhaps generational. Technically I'm a member of a minority community but I've never defined myself by that, and "hate" in the contemporary sense (I think its meaning has drifted unhelpfully) is not something that especially bothers me. My experience is that most people are well-meaning, so I tend to be intrigued by the question of why they think the things they do.
Anyway, this is not a debate with a single correct answer. It is of course your right to shut out whoever you want, I won't question that.
There are multiple governments, political parties and hate groups explicitly focused on taking away my rights and ensuring I can't exist safely and openly.
It's got nothing to do with personality. I'm exposed to a barrage of hateful media targeting folk like me every single day, and it's next to impossible to escape.
So finding spaces where I can just not have to deal with that shit is important