Bluesky just verified ICE

[keenflame@feddit.nu]

I do. But.. how will that happen if they are not verified...?

[edible_funk@sh.itjust.works]

Nah balls to that. This is simple paradox of tolerance shit, anti-social ideology doesn't get a platform in the marketplace of ideas.

[ricecake@sh.itjust.works]

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.

[omnipitaph@reddthat.com]

That's a nice strawman you've built for yourself. What's their name?

[dehaga@feddit.uk]

And miss out on all the juicy trolling opportunities?

[balsoft@lemmy.ml]

Good to know there's a second full-network relay (assuming this is what it is). Last time I checked all third-party relays only indexed some sections of the network, so my knowledge was outdated.

Conceptually relays are the indexers of the network, you can view individual PDSes without them, but you won't get cross-PDS discovery; this is because PDSes don't actually federate with each other.

This means that in practice, relays define what it means to be "on bluesky". If you are banned on all relays, your PDS becomes just a weird standalone microblog.

This is different from the fediverse, where all instances federate with each other by default and relays just enhance discoverability and connectivity, rather than being the only way to do it.

And in any case this is all a bit academic, bluesky are hosting nazis on their own PDS, bsky.social.

[shimitar@downonthestreet.eu]

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.

[balsoft@lemmy.ml]

They have already posted a job ad to join a violent fascist paramilitary in their profile.

[balsoft@lemmy.ml]

I wouldn't call it "endorsing", but I would call it "platforming". blahaj.zone is platforming you, lemmy.ml is platforming me, bluesky is platforming nazis.

[sayjess@lemmy.blahaj.zone]

ICE is attacking and brutalizing people, daily. Killing them. Blinding them. They do not deserve any platform for them to post their hate.

Haven’t posted yet? So what? This is some dumbass free speech absolutism that brought us to timelines like these.

[minimac@lemmy.ml]

I deleted my account on BlueSky since last Sept. BlueSky is pretty trash

[tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

True they have been guilty for a while, but they didn't always post like they have been now, as a part of DHS who posts nothing but fascist propaganda on other social media these days I doubt their posts would be different. ICE is actively recruiting so just having the account is an ad for joining, not that different than a corporate business social media. I agree with the idea that a communication platform should be neutral politically, in general, but it is a special situation when an agency is currently waging a violent campaign and uses social media to further their agenda and blurring of the truth. They are a government agency but not a necessary one and it's not essential they are allowed on a third-party social media platform, it could be argued their conduct and behavior as a group is already against the policies of Bluesky like condoning violence.

But anyway I agree they shouldn't necessarily be blocked preemptively, a rogue poster could use the account to say "ICE are terrorist thugs" or something.

[general_effort@lemmy.world]

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?

[stabby_cicada@lemmy.blahaj.zone]

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.

[_stranger_@lemmy.world]

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.

[andrewrgross@slrpnk.net]

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.

[reabsorbthelight@lemmy.world]

We also want to ensure that conservatives are repeatedly alienated so they build their own networks and never see other points of view! /s

[periodicallypedantic@lemmy.ca]

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.

[tubulartittyfrog@lemmy.world]

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.

[periodicallypedantic@lemmy.ca]

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.