Here we spot wild Bardfinn Bluesky activities.
Be valid and ping ! bardfinn for something worthwhile or create a new thread.
/h/bardfanns
BardWatch
She/Her
Anti-Hate-Brigade
27d ago
(text post)
40 thread views
#332533
earned 12 coins from votes
Bard spotting on Bluesky 12 January 2025 
- 15
- 4
Now playing: Cranky's Conga (DKC2).mp3
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Dave Willner (@dwillner.bsky.social):
Longish answer - Users blocking content for themselves is a useful tool for some kinds of problems (e.g. you don't want to see nude pictures) but doesn't do much at all for others (e.g. you don't want other people to see nude picture of you). 🧵 1/6
Dave Willner (@dwillner.bsky.social):
More generally, it's more or less impossible to have really large social spaces online that aren't moderated for a whole host of things, very few of which are actually legally required (e.g. CSAM, NCII, regulated goods) and many of which are not (e.g. spam, doxxing, terrorist propaganda, etc). 🧵 2/6
Dave Willner (@dwillner.bsky.social):
So the question is really just "which things do you think should be moderated" not "should moderation happen". Everyone outside the dark web moderates, including X and 4chan. It's just disagreements over which things are in and which are out. 🧵 3/6
Dave Willner (@dwillner.bsky.social):
That's true for FB's changes here. Their hate speech policy still prohibits quite a lot of stuff! It just now has very specific carve outs to allow certain kinds of speech if based on gender, sexuality, and immigration status that is still prohibited if based on race, religion, etc. 🧵 4/6
Dave Willner (@dwillner.bsky.social):
In my view, that doesn't make much sense from any principled point of view. If you were primarily concerned with "free speech" you'd go further than they have, while if you were only concerned with ensuring you don't interfere with legislative debates you'd go much less far. 🧵 5/6
Dave Willner (@dwillner.bsky.social):
Either way, what they've done here is incoherent to me and, in my view, only really makes sense if it's motivated by avoiding pissing off Republicans, rather than by any specific set of principles one way or the other. 🧵 6/6
Zach (@zbayou.bsky.social):
It is utterly supplicating to Republican viewpoints. Zuckerberg is just embracing maximum cynicism and has made himself and his company maximally embarrassing and dare I say, nefarious.
Dave Willner (@dwillner.bsky.social):
I have found myself puzzled what the long term strategy is here. My belief had been that Zuck was pretty good at prioritizing the company's long term financial interests. I get the short-term strategy here, but not the long term - a bunch of the damage here feels like it can't be easily undone.
Zach (@zbayou.bsky.social):
My sense is that he's fully ingrained billionaire hubris like Musk and based on both the corporate structure of his organization, Meta's embedding of its ad infrastructure so widely, and M&A-monopolization of digital services via Insta and Whatsapp (and now Threads), he doesn't fear any consequence.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
"If people didn't leave over the Rohingya genocide, they won't leave over this" is how I expect it boils
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Are you feeling okay bud?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context