Bluesky just verified ICE
-
Everyone responding here and confused why this matters seem not get the point. This post is just a warning that the types of people most of us don't want to associate with are now on that platform. The problem is not that they are verified, it's that they exist there at all.
Edit: some reasonable arguments have been made here for allowing these Nazis on Blue sky, which I originally thought was a bad idea, but maybe disallowing them won't actually solve anything and may exacerbate things. I don't know. I'll think about it some more.
Personally, I do want a common communication platform for people I despise because I want to be able to keep tabs on their public announcements. Also, I don't want any tech platform to have sole authority over who can communicate, as in the present, that will invariably work against the left more than the right.
I do not want to share close proximity to them on a network graph, or regularly engage with their supporters, though. So I agree that federation is crucial. But to be clear, it's not because I want to ban them from a platform, it's because I want managed distance and better moderation.
I don't mind Bluesky verifying them, but I'm glad that on Mastodon I don't have to share the same giant server as them.
-
No, that's exactly what I thought, and I'm still confused as why this is bad? Do people want baby's first echo chamber again?
We also want to ensure that conservatives are repeatedly alienated so they build their own networks and never see other points of view! /s
-
Trump being able to clone Mastodon is not the same as letting Trump on Mastodon.social
The Mastodon devs made a choice in releasing it as open source. They could have decided to pick and chose who is allowed to use it. It was completely foreseeable, that the software would be used for something like Gab or Truth.Social. When they release update, they know that these will also be used by such services.
This is merely a statement of fact, not criticism. They chose not to exercise power or become arbiters of good and evil. That is laudable.
Bluesky is a centralized platform and their mods don’t ban Nazis.
I get it. You feel that tech companies should deny service to bad people. For example, to a government agency acting on behalf of a president elected by a solid majority of the popular vote.
I agree that the voters got it wrong, but I don't think that the rich and powerful vetoing voters will lead to good outcomes. Look at medieval Europe. Life got better with democracy, not with a supposedly more just king.
The tech lord most in line with your ideas is Elon Musk, except that he's kinda nazi. So, on a purely practical note, it doesn't seem very likely that tech companies being more political would lessen racism.
Do you think it would be better if all the billionaires, who are probably mostly non-nazi, were activist like him?
I think that tech companies taking a stand on what their employees and/or users believe in is a reasonable thing.
Idk what the employees of bluesky believe, but I'm fairly familiar with the bay area tech scene and I think that there is a decent chance that the employees would like to take a stand by not providing services to ICE.
That being said, idk if simply allowing them to have an account is providing services. I think it's probably better to have govt agencies have verified accounts so people know when things are official statements, even if you disagree with the agency.
-
Lol, yeah. If I saw an account labeled "American Nazi Party" with a blue check mark, I wouldn't think "wow, Bluesky endorses Nazis" - I'd think "wow, this isn't a satire account, these are actual Nazis, imma block them."
yeah but you have at least half a brain.
most internet users barely have 1/10 of one. and demand other users be banned for not sharing their opinions, but would be outraged if they were banned for their objectionable opinions.
-
Everyone responding here and confused why this matters seem not get the point. This post is just a warning that the types of people most of us don't want to associate with are now on that platform. The problem is not that they are verified, it's that they exist there at all.
Edit: some reasonable arguments have been made here for allowing these Nazis on Blue sky, which I originally thought was a bad idea, but maybe disallowing them won't actually solve anything and may exacerbate things. I don't know. I'll think about it some more.
If it's an official govt agency I think it makes sense for them to be allowed on communications platforms and to be verified, so that people can see what they're saying and know that it's an official statement.
Then people can see the post and make their own judgements about it, knowing it's an official agency statement.
Having twitter style factcheck for blatant misinformation is also important for this, though. -
you are in control of which social media you use
I don't use or support Bluesky.
You are currently spending your energy defending a company
I'm not defending anyone. I am just looking at a stated claim (Bluesky is as bad as Twitter because they verified ICE) and evaluating if it has merits. I don't think it does.
If a newspaper you enjoy reading
The "newspaper I enjoy reading" is the WWW. The reason that I don't buy newspapers is because I want to keep the power to curate the information that I receive. As long as I am reasonably in control of the information that I can access, I see no point in complaining about it.
If you want to make a parallel to Reddit: despite it being 99% filled with crap that I don't care about, I could use it just fine and ignore all the drama. But when they decided to change the terms of the API and they were trying to force the specific channel to use to access it, then I immediately "stopped enjoying it" and went on to work on a solution to be back in control.
I'm not defending anyone. I am just looking at a stated claim (Bluesky is as bad as Twitter because they verified ICE) and evaluating if it has merits.
I don't think that's the claim, at least that's not the way I'm reading it.
Here is the quote we are discussing:
Wow. Bluesky has just welcomed and
verified ICE.For anyone still thinking Bsky is a real
alternative to Twitter: No, it's not.Mastodon is. Bsky is just X at its infancy.
Let me spell it out the way I understand it:
Bluesky is knowingly hosting nazis. The verification here just displays the mens rea: rather than them just not noticing the account, they know about it and still haven't banned it.
Bluesky is not as bad as Twitter right now. However, this is the quintessential beginning of a Nazi bar, which means it will eventually become as bad as Twitter.
The Fediverse is not knowingly hosting nazis. Instances ban nazi accounts, and those that don't are considered nazi instances and are quickly defederated by 99% of other instances. This is the minimum that I expect of Bluesky too, since it's a centralized platform and should be better at moderation.
As long as I am reasonably in control of the information that I can access, I see no point in complaining about it.
I think there is a significant problem in platforming nazis. It gives this vile ideology a voice and a means to spread. Especially given the state of media literacy and critical thinking in the West, a lot of people don't know how to control which information they see, and makes them susceptible to this manipulation. Fascism is rising through social media misinfo right now, as we discuss this, so it is very important to complain about it as loud as possible.
-
So, trying to parse what's going on here.
Bluesky has verified that an account claiming to belong to the US government agency ICE really is controlled by that agency. Somehow that shows that Mastodon is better. Because Trump has his own Mastodon instance and doesn't need anyone to vouch for his goons?
Looking at the comments, maybe the issue is rather that the Bluesky company provides services to ICE. Tech companies should refuse service. Huh. I guess there is more diversity of opinion on Lemmy than I had thought, regarding the power of tech companies, democracy, and law.
it's called guilt by assocation. it's shitty and lame type of logical fallacy
if you live on the same street as a nazi, you must be a nazi. because apparently you have to sell your home and move away if a nazi moves in.
of course, if you do this and it's a non-white person you are racist... and a bad person, but if you do it for a nazi you're a good person.
it's not as if the logic of the thing is what at's fault, and the accuser has hyperbolic sense of other people's social obligations to appeal to their sensibility.
-
I think that tech companies taking a stand on what their employees and/or users believe in is a reasonable thing.
Idk what the employees of bluesky believe, but I'm fairly familiar with the bay area tech scene and I think that there is a decent chance that the employees would like to take a stand by not providing services to ICE.
That being said, idk if simply allowing them to have an account is providing services. I think it's probably better to have govt agencies have verified accounts so people know when things are official statements, even if you disagree with the agency.
taking a stand on what their employees and/or users believe in is a reasonable thing.
The majority of USA citizens voted for Trump. Why should Bluesky take a stand on what a minority believe in?
-
it's called guilt by assocation. it's shitty and lame type of logical fallacy
if you live on the same street as a nazi, you must be a nazi. because apparently you have to sell your home and move away if a nazi moves in.
of course, if you do this and it's a non-white person you are racist... and a bad person, but if you do it for a nazi you're a good person.
it's not as if the logic of the thing is what at's fault, and the accuser has hyperbolic sense of other people's social obligations to appeal to their sensibility.
I would like an explanation as to exactly why a Nazi and a non-white person are comparable categories of people.
-
I .. don't understand? Are they bad because they verified them? Why the "welcome" comment, that's not what Verification is? Are they "platforming" them? I don't get what is the preferred outcomes?
The verification is from Blue Sky itself saying that the account is indeed ICE agency.
Fuck ICE they should not be having a a platform
-
taking a stand on what their employees and/or users believe in is a reasonable thing.
The majority of USA citizens voted for Trump. Why should Bluesky take a stand on what a minority believe in?
Actually, less than a quarter of citizens voted for him. Less than a 3rd or registered voters.
Not even half of a half of citizens said they wanted this.
-
Trump being able to clone Mastodon is not the same as letting Trump on Mastodon.social
The Mastodon devs made a choice in releasing it as open source. They could have decided to pick and chose who is allowed to use it. It was completely foreseeable, that the software would be used for something like Gab or Truth.Social. When they release update, they know that these will also be used by such services.
This is merely a statement of fact, not criticism. They chose not to exercise power or become arbiters of good and evil. That is laudable.
Bluesky is a centralized platform and their mods don’t ban Nazis.
I get it. You feel that tech companies should deny service to bad people. For example, to a government agency acting on behalf of a president elected by a solid majority of the popular vote.
I agree that the voters got it wrong, but I don't think that the rich and powerful vetoing voters will lead to good outcomes. Look at medieval Europe. Life got better with democracy, not with a supposedly more just king.
The tech lord most in line with your ideas is Elon Musk, except that he's kinda nazi. So, on a purely practical note, it doesn't seem very likely that tech companies being more political would lessen racism.
Do you think it would be better if all the billionaires, who are probably mostly non-nazi, were activist like him?
solid majority of the popular vote
narrow plurality
-
If it's an official govt agency I think it makes sense for them to be allowed on communications platforms and to be verified, so that people can see what they're saying and know that it's an official statement.
Then people can see the post and make their own judgements about it, knowing it's an official agency statement.
Having twitter style factcheck for blatant misinformation is also important for this, though.Yeah, I can see that perspective too, but at the same time it's Nazi propaganda they're posting. There aren't really any good options.
-
Lol, yeah. If I saw an account labeled "American Nazi Party" with a blue check mark, I wouldn't think "wow, Bluesky endorses Nazis" - I'd think "wow, this isn't a satire account, these are actual Nazis, imma block them."
Lol, yeah. If I saw an account labeled “American Nazi Party” with a blue check mark, I wouldn’t think “wow, Bluesky endorses Nazis” - I’d think “wow, this isn’t a satire account, these are actual Nazis, imma block them.”
I'd think "wow they let Nazis on here. Like they know about them and are cool with that. This place is trash"
-
What's the alternative? They have admins ban any and all accounts that might be made by ice or ice personnel? Refusing to validate them doesn't take them off the platform. They'd still be there, you just wouldn't know who they were. In fact you still don't, they could very well have puppet accounts all across blue sky, Lemmy, and all of your favorite instances.
At the very least when this account starts to post insane shit, you'll know it's actually them and not some edge lord cosplayer pretending to be ice. A verified account removes the plausible deniability aspect of anonymous posting.
And I'm not being argumentative, I'm asking a genuine question. This is the Gestapo wearing a uniform. If anything, they're stupid for asking for verification. This is them wearing ICE jackets to the grocery store.
The real test will be how bluesky treats the content this verified account posts. When (and let's be real, it'll be when, not if) bluesky refuses to censor this account, then they'll have proven themselves complicit.
They have admins ban any and all accounts that might be made by ice or ice personnel?
yes.
-
Apparently you slept through the part where mainstream social media did try to censor, ban, and deplatform that dictator's supporters, and it backfired.
I mean, Twitter literally banned Donald Trump, and he just started his own Twitter clone. Mainstream social media banned COVID disinformation and now we have an anti-vaxxer running the US Department of Health. Probably hundreds of thousands of people got deplatformed for claiming the 2020 elections were stolen, and more people now believe Trump won in 2020 then they did in 2021.
Biden pressured big social media to censor ideas he didn't want spreading. The ideas spread anyway. All Biden did was show he was afraid of those ideas and make some of the worst people in the world look like martyrs.
I really can't think of a better example of how "deplatforming Nazis" doesn't work than the last five years of American history.
I see what you're saying and you make a good point honestly.
-
I do. But.. how will that happen if they are not verified...?
Yeah, I wasn't the clearest here. I thought they shouldn't be allowed on there at all, but I'm rethinking it now.
-
Yeah, so? Verification just means they are who they say they are. It doesn't mean Bluesky endorses their posts.
The White House has a verified Bluesky account, too. They haven't posted anything in months, though, presumably because of all the ratio-ing.
I get why this would bug people.
It's a small act of legitimizing the domestic Gestapo, but we've already seen that the corporate social media is a-okay with platforming terrorists, Nazis, and the worst.
That's why we're on Lemmy instead.
-
On one hand I see your point. On t'other, we've tried complete neutrality and it failed, maybe it's time for a communications platform where we hold people to a standard?
We haven't, really. Our "complete neutrality" is infested with troll farms, where people are employed to make hundreds of accounts to spread propaganda.
I'm thinking the answer is to implement a huge barrier for troll farms, but a small speed bump for real people.
It could be oauth with Steam or your cell provider, where you can make an account if you've spent over $250 with them. Actual credit history would work. You can combine these and allow any of them, which might let one person make 3-4 accounts, maybe, but that's still limited enough to make things difficult for troll farms.
There is an issue where billionaires that want to influence us have absolutely absurd resources, and maybe paying $1000 per account isn't enough of a barrier for them. But at least it gives us a chance for the bans to stick significantly more than they do now.
-
So, trying to parse what's going on here.
Bluesky has verified that an account claiming to belong to the US government agency ICE really is controlled by that agency. Somehow that shows that Mastodon is better. Because Trump has his own Mastodon instance and doesn't need anyone to vouch for his goons?
Looking at the comments, maybe the issue is rather that the Bluesky company provides services to ICE. Tech companies should refuse service. Huh. I guess there is more diversity of opinion on Lemmy than I had thought, regarding the power of tech companies, democracy, and law.
It's just all emotion and no rational thought now. People just go into outrage mode when certain topics are mentioned.
Really it opens a channel to criticize ICE without needing to logon to X to do so. But that's bad because preventing communication is good?
Of course I doubt ICE will care about criticism directed towards their account on bluesky. But that means things said on the internet don't have much of an effect on things, which means it doesn't matter whether they're on bluesky (or any other forum).
Mostly it's about some weird belief by some about controlling what is being said on the internet gains power. You'd think the events that have happened would have proven this wrong, but still people continue to be upset about things being said on the internet and want some power over those things.
Really words on the internet don't matter as much as people think, and the idea of blocking unwanted information is annoying at best and can lead to ignorance. What matters is the horrible acts ICE is doing. We should want more light being shown on them, and welcome any potential channel of discussion.
Wanting to prevent discussion indicates you feel you're in the wrong. ICE is indicating they want discussion, while those that are outraged by ICE being on bluesky are indicating they don't want discussion on ICE. Why would anyone want to make is seem ICE is in the right while they're in the wrong? It's people not thinking and only reacting emotionally and handing ICE a W because they are raging instead of thinking.
