Show newer

Partial repost due to a federation bug.

Bluesky has been known to remove sexual content they don't like. Content Twitter had no issue with in the past.

Bluesky suffers from privacy issues, despite making nods towards digital rights.

Stop mythologizing it.

Show thread

Likewise, these args like "the rigged system" seem to fall apart when you compare it to another site (I'm aware there may be ppl who don't like a recent FB policy change).

Finally, as we've covered before, a lot of Bluesky's freedom is *illusory*.

Show thread

This has less to do with the management of a site or technical architecture. It has much to do with hype cycles in the media. It curiously ignores Bluesky is not the only other platform. There's Threads, Reddit, Discord, but they present it as Twitter vs Bluesky.

Show thread

They promised sunshine, rainbows, and unicorns. An unrealistic promise. Now, the media determined there are users who're too much, clobbering former NYTimes columnist, Jesse (and a newer pundit), and they are voicing their concerns, including a NYTimes journalist.

Show thread

Even on Twitter, the small character limit was always a bad architectural decision and it was always stifling.

Show thread

Bluesky talk.

There is no reason to have such a small character limit. This is a mistake also made by Mastodon (although, with a small improvement) where developers decide to do something because Twitter did something in the past.

A longer character limit doesn't fix every issue with a lack of context. People can be relatively casual or not think that deeply about how someone might interpret a post.

However, it would go a long way.

Another issue with Bluesky that's related to is the small character limit.

A longer one would allow users to add more context and to avoid confusion.

I think one of the big issues with Bluesky when it comes to is the lack of privacy settings.

Plus, this isn't something which is done with practically any other crime, so it seems strange to keep lowering the threshold.

Show thread

There has to be a point when turning medical professionals into snitches, rather than actually doing their jobs, becomes a problem.

Show thread

"exploitation" is defined broadly, so it's not just abuse. Maybe, viewing images.

Olives  
I have a #privacy concern about a proposal part of the E.U. Parliament came up with. If a medical professional reports someone, because they "suspe...

exclude someone who does not believe they are likely to abuse someone.

Show thread

or to self-censor when doing so (which could be detrimental in a number of ways).

One proposed mitigation seems to be to exempt services which are explicitly for abuse prevention, however, such an overt focus on that might be intimidating to someone and would necessarily

Show thread

I have a concern about a proposal part of the E.U. Parliament came up with. If a medical professional reports someone, because they "suspect" they may have been involved in child exploitation, it's likely that would turn a sizeable number of people off from seeing any

Someone pointed out that prohibition would also make research very hard. Yes, it would.

Something as simple as reaching someone might be difficult.

EPP refers to the European People's Party.

Show thread
Show older
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.