Bluesky just verified ICE
-
This post did not contain any content.
Does a verification equate to an endorsement now? I'm strongly against ICE, but as long as ICE exists, then it makes sense to verify their official account. That's all verification is to me at least, just something to let you know it's the real _ account rather than an imposter.
-
Does a verification equate to an endorsement now? I'm strongly against ICE, but as long as ICE exists, then it makes sense to verify their official account. That's all verification is to me at least, just something to let you know it's the real _ account rather than an imposter.
Yes, I think it’s an especially good idea to verify them right now. I don’t want some imposter escalating a war.
Do I want them in my spaces? Fuck no. I would prefer to abolish ICE and arrest all those treasonous fuckers.
But, that’s the reality of the world right now. It’s important to know what is real and what isn’t.
-
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.
To me, this feels like school politics.
OMG! Jaden invited ICE to his birthday party! I'm never talking to him again!
Oh No! ICE nabbed Julio! I'm telling the teacher and they will get suspended!
Probably a good number of these people are actual children. I know there are adults who have broadly similar ideas. For someone living a very sheltered and privileged life, being trolled on the internet is the absolute worst form of aggression they ever experience. Particularly in Europe, activists and politicians talk about "digital violence", which tells you that they have no sense of proportion.
-
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.
I think that tech companies taking a stand on what their employees and/or users believe in is a reasonable thing.
How would that actually work? Like, you'd have pro-Trump and anti-Trump companies that only employ pro- and anti-Trump employees and only serve pro- and anti-Trump customers? What happens when someone who is basically pro-Trump thinks that ICE goes too far?
-
I think that tech companies taking a stand on what their employees and/or users believe in is a reasonable thing.
How would that actually work? Like, you'd have pro-Trump and anti-Trump companies that only employ pro- and anti-Trump employees and only serve pro- and anti-Trump customers? What happens when someone who is basically pro-Trump thinks that ICE goes too far?
It's illegal to hire people or refuse to hire people based on political beliefs or affiliation, so you're not gonna have companies that only employ Trump supporters or employ no Trump supporters. Politics is considered a protected group wrt employment law in the USA and many countries.
But how would it actually work?
It's not like it's difficult to gauge employee sentiment about ICE. If your employees are strongly against it, then you simply don't enter the competition for ICE contracts, or you choose to not renew the contracts when they expire. -
Does a verification equate to an endorsement now? I'm strongly against ICE, but as long as ICE exists, then it makes sense to verify their official account. That's all verification is to me at least, just something to let you know it's the real _ account rather than an imposter.
Yes, platforming Nazis is a bad idea. The correct response would be to ban the account and any similar accounts.
-
And miss out on all the juicy trolling opportunities?
Yes, driving Nazis from society is more important than including them so you can then performatively dunk on them.
I honestly cannot believe anyone here would struggle to understand that. Come on ffs
-
No, you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not the person you were replying to.
Mastodon is a piece of software. It has a license, just like bluesky or any other. You can put a clause in the license saying the software cannot be used for the dissemination of hate speech. The open source community has discussed this and decided it goes against the principles of free software and open source.If you're mad at one and not the other, you're applying different standards because being part of the fediverse weighs more.
Personally I hold platforms to a different standard and so I'm neither mad at mastodon nor bluesky. I just think it's hypocritical to be mad at someone for publishing a fascists letter but not be mad at the person who gave the same fascist a printing press.
You can put a clause in the license saying the software cannot be used for the dissemination of hate speech. The open source community has discussed this and decided it goes against the principles of free software and open source.
Says who? How can you authoritatively say the open source community has decided something collectively on this subject? That categorically doesn't make sense on multiple different dimensions.
-
This post did not contain any content.
The thing is that I kinda dont like the idea of stopping people from freely expressing themselves, but I do agree to the fact that allowing them to be verified might be another small piece of legitimizaiton. We shoudl all be defending democracy, but when does tollerating intollerants become harmfui? A tolerant society shouldn't tolerate intolerant people
-
You haven't been on the Internet very long, huh?
What ICE is doing is way worse than what happens on the internet...? Most of the stuff on the internet is words, ICE is actually kidnapping, killing and deporting people.
-
Echo chamber in different words. I grew up with a lot of conservatives. Hard second amendment people. They listen if you listen
They listen if you listen
In a fantasy world version of the US, conservatives do that, in the real world US the minute you start doing that you have abandoned what it means to be a conservative.
-
Does a verification equate to an endorsement now? I'm strongly against ICE, but as long as ICE exists, then it makes sense to verify their official account. That's all verification is to me at least, just something to let you know it's the real _ account rather than an imposter.
Does a verification equate to an endorsement now?
Never been the case, tho many do interpret it to be that way.
-
What ICE is doing is way worse than what happens on the internet...? Most of the stuff on the internet is words, ICE is actually kidnapping, killing and deporting people.
I see what you mean now; your wording was ambiguous, specifically "do".
anyone impersonating gestapo would post anything worse than they already do
sounds like you're saying 'would post anything worse than they already post'.
-
The thing is that I kinda dont like the idea of stopping people from freely expressing themselves, but I do agree to the fact that allowing them to be verified might be another small piece of legitimizaiton. We shoudl all be defending democracy, but when does tollerating intollerants become harmfui? A tolerant society shouldn't tolerate intolerant people
People can freely express themselves. Giving a domestic terror organization run by the government extra legitimacy by “verifying” them has nothing to do with free speech. It amplifies their message over the speech of actual people.
-
Yes, platforming Nazis is a bad idea. The correct response would be to ban the account and any similar accounts.
Normally I'd agree, but ICE is a government organization and since people get their news on social media these days, it makes sense that ICE doesn't get banned as long as they follow ToS.
-
So the mastodon service supports Nazis.
nobody owns it and anyone can run it
They could have chosen a license that forbid usage for spreading hate. They put "free software" and "open source" above blocking hate speech.
They're providing software to Nazis, and I don't really see how that makes them better than providing a place to post.I do see your point and I'll actually upvote you here. But I do think there's a meaningful difference.
Software is just an idea written down rigorously. Various societies created various conventions and social contracts to control dissemination and usage of ideas, both in their pure and written down forms. Capitalist societies generally defer to the author of the idea for how they want it handled (at least for the first few decades), so that the author can earn some money from it (of course, even ideas are monetized under capitalism) - this is patent and copyright law.
The free software movement is just a novel application of the copyright law. By sharing ideas freely but with a license that forces everyone using the idea to share their derivative ideas freely as well, it is attempting to destroy the spirit of copyright law by using the letter of copyright law.
With all this in mind, let's examine what it would mean to add the "don't be evil" clause to an otherwise FOSS license.
- In ideal circumstances, a society's system of laws and social norms should incorporate "don't be evil" in it already. Hate speech and nazism should be prohibited and punished, so the clause would be superfluous.
- In "ordinary circumstances" of neoliberal capitalism, there are agencies that will be acting in bad faith but will stand above any laws, be it geneva conventions, hate speech laws or (boring) copyright law. You won't be able to enforce a "don't be evil" clause against the CIA or ICE or the Rockefeller. They can just take your software and use it, so the clause would be of little use typically. This is partially applicable to our current situation.
- In extraordinary circumstances, such as capitalism in advanced decay a.k.a fascism, the law will be ignored by most evil actors anyways. Law is just a social contract and fascism is deliberately breaking all social contracts. Nobody will enforce copyright law in favor of an individual FOSS developer, especially against someone who's on the side of the regime. So the clause is completely useless. This is also applicable to our situation.
There is some edge-cases in the middle where a "don't be evil" clause might make a bit of sense. If the contract law (which includes copyright law) is still well-respected, but the social contract itself is falling apart around it, it might be used to prevent some nazis somewhere from using your software for a short while, but that situation is always unstable and does not last. In any case nazis are known for ignoring all social contracts, including court orders, so even this is questionable.
There are also downsides in any "don't be evil" clause, because it requires you to rigorously define what you mean by "evil". This is actually really hard to do well without relying on existing laws (which ruins the point), and will usually either leave nazis leeway to get away with using it, or harm legitimate users, or both - especially because legitimate users are less likely to try pushing the boundaries.
This is explicitly different from what Bluesky is doing. They are hosting known nazis. Nothing is stopping them from banning ICE and making it into a point of pride, it is really easy. There is no downside, no legitimate user hurt. It's as easy of a decision as one can make.
To reiterate,
So the mastodon service supports Nazis.
Mastodon-the-service doesn't really exist (unless you count mastodon.social). But the fediverse in general is not supporting nazis. Nazis are banned and defederated.
Mastodon-the-software may "support" nazis in the same way as the idea of a printing press (from your other comment) supported nazis.
They’re providing software to Nazis, and I don’t really see how that makes them better than providing a place to post.
Bluesky is categorically worse because it doesn't have the "don't be evil" clause in the software licenses either, and it is hosting nazis directly on the platform they run.
-
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.
I mean they are a legitimate government office. Trump didn't found them, they've existed for over two decades. It's only their outrageous gestaponess that's recent.
-
You don't get it: I am and will remain the only user of my instance...
Do you even now how Lemmy works? Did I say I was going to let ICE people create users on my instance? I only said I don't defederate any instance.
If you turned off registration then you are not allowing ICE on your platform so problem solved?
-
You can put a clause in the license saying the software cannot be used for the dissemination of hate speech. The open source community has discussed this and decided it goes against the principles of free software and open source.
Says who? How can you authoritatively say the open source community has decided something collectively on this subject? That categorically doesn't make sense on multiple different dimensions.
Says the fact that it's come up multiple times amongst a wide swath of the open source community, and look about you. Those licenses aren't used. One or two exist and have a vanishingly small usage level and a couple more I have been "in progress" for years.
The people who write most of the open source licenses have explanations for why it's not compatible.Group behavior is a collective decision and a reflection of the group.
-
They listen if you listen
In a fantasy world version of the US, conservatives do that, in the real world US the minute you start doing that you have abandoned what it means to be a conservative.
https://www.streetepistemology.com/
Check this out. I used to do things like this with hard core right wing (trump flags, cleaning their guns everyday).
My goal wasn't to convince them, but get them to think critically and feel safe around liberals. The ones I talked to were usually convinced leftists were out to get them. I was a leftist who would literally just listen to them, watch Fox news with them and then we'd get burritos and hang out.
I want them to think of me and other friends, when they see videos of ICE beating up people. I'll never convince them to vote blue, but maybe I can convince them that we can disagree about politics, but still be friends
