In 2024, Bluesky wrote about their "Stackable Approach to Moderation":
https://bsky.social/about/blog/03-12-2024-stackable-moderati...
Now in 2026, their transparency report says nothing about stackable moderation or moderation services. I guess nobody is using them, at least not in significant enough volumes that it would have a meaningful effect on the at least not enough for them to have a meaningful effect on the Trust & Safety team's job.
Likewise, they tout "thousands of Personal Data Servers operated by people across the federated AT Protocol network", but that's out of "41.41M users".
It's fine, I guess. It's just not meaningfully decentralized.
> I guess nobody is using them, at least not in significant enough volumes that it would have a meaningful effect on the at least not enough for them to have a meaningful effect on the Trust & Safety team's job.
It’s spread out over subgroups and niches. I imagine the biggest independent moderation service is blacksky’s, and they’re not exactly best friends with bluesky.
I use about five different moderation services, and a handful of independent blocklists.
> It's fine, I guess. It's just not meaningfully decentralized.
It’s better than the situation on X.
“toxicity and inflammatory” does a lot of heavy lifting for Blueskys moderation team.
i find it’s pretty toxic, in a militant way… that doesn’t get moderated of course.
That’s “free expression” when it’s about topics blueskyers all agree on.
waits to be called a nazi
This accusation would have a little more zing, if the person who owns the other place wasn't posting about white replacement almost every day.
Pretty shitty that ones choice of social media is so politicized but if you must pick a side... I will pick the non-nazi side, thank you very much!
Yeah, not sure why I'd spend a minute of my time on a social media site where the owner's boosted comments literally make me feel physically ill.
Experiencing physical revulsion at anodyne posts and recasting social media choice as a moral emergency is not characteristic of a well-adjusted mental state. That kind of reaction says more about the norms of a subculture than about Musk or the platform.
Personally endorsed by Musk: "If white men become a minority, we will be slaughtered. Remember, if non-Whites openly hate White men while White men hold a collective majority, then they will be 1000x times [sic] more hostile and cruel when they are a majority over whites. White solidarity is the only way to survive." https://religiondispatches.org/2026/01/09/musk-endorsed-whit...
And this is "anodyne" to you? Personally, I want absolutely nothing to do with these cretins. Being in the same virtual space with them makes me feel dirty, let alone using a platform actually owned by one of them. I wouldn't go to Stormfront to discuss gaming news, either.
[dead]
[flagged]
What topics cause you the most problems?
The kind of topics that were popular in Germany circa 1939.
Case in point. "Everyone to the right of Marx is a Nazi" seems to be the rallying cry of their moderation strategy and user base.
Which is fine -- build what you want to be a part of -- but don't pretend it's the neutral position.
What about the moderation strategy indicates that?
Try participating in discussions with a politically disapproved position and see how fast you're shadow-banned.
And no, I'm not talking about "1939 Germany" views.
Did that happen to you, or to anybody you can point to?
I think we're just, once again, speed-running the "which opinions, mfer" goose meme.
I wanted to play devil's advocate here, but unfortunately did find an example of a "politically disapproved position" in frumple's post history:
"The deportations will continue regardless of the tantrums of the hysterical and mentally ill."
Which ironically is similar to some "1939 Germany" views.
Are you claiming that enforcing existing 2026 U.S. immigration law -- developed through decades of bipartisan agreement and consistent with policies in other liberal democracies -- is in any way comparable to 1939 Germany and their systematic murder of millions?
That comparison is precisely the problem: it distorts history, inflates moral claims, and shuts down serious discussion.
This is also largely the standard level of rhetoric on Bluesky, which is fine -- but manufactured consensus on a heavily moderated platform is not the same thing as factual or moral authority.
Even if the current state of immigration policy was forged in a bipartisan agreement(it wasn't), it would be inhumane and I would condemn it.
Fortunately the Republicans, specifically Tom Homan and Stephen Miller, can be shown to have a record of dehumanizing people to the point of cruelty.
As far as anyone could tell they were behind the effort to separate children from their families, and the decision to intentionally destroy records, and prevent the recording of data, which ultimately left over a thousand children orphaned to this very day.
I know someone in CBP who volunteered to try help sort that situation out, ready to get on a plane, paying out of pocket, and they were told to stand down by leadership.
The republican-led executive branch wanted to inflict pain despite the law, and despite "policy".
And now those same people (Homan and Miller) are behind the door-to-door raids, asking people for their papers, building detention centers(even though we're supposed to be sending them back home...), and targeting political enemies.
Obama managed to deport 3 million people without this excess use of cruelty, civil rights violations, manpower, or money.
This is something else.
This level of hatred towards the other is the type of seed that may or may not grow into a holocaust. It's understandable if some people want to kill it before it sprouts by drawing obvious parallels.
I don't think the Obama comparison is very useful. Trump faces a vastly more difficult problem than Obama did. For most of his presidency, Obama simply continued the Operation Streamline era policies that he inherited from Bush. He didn't have to clean up after a previous administration that had completely lost control of the border, allowing somewhere between ten and forty million immigrants through. And Obama didn't have to contend with dozens of states and cities declaring themselves sanctuaries, completely off limits to meaningful immigration enforcement, even of criminal migrants.
My own state promptly made it illegal for local law enforcement to cooperate with border patrol or immigration enforcement agents in any circumstance.
So now, if we want our country to have meaningful borders, immigration enforcement has to be done the hard way, and it shouldn't be surprising that Kristi Noem's clown show is showing signs of clusterfuckery. It's actually surprising that things have gone as well as they have.
This is a category error. Immigration enforcement -- even when abusive or unlawful, which is not a concession I make -- is not genocide. Invoking 1939 Germany collapses distinctions that matter.
Holocaust analogies based on unsupported anecdote and asserted intent aren’t analysis; they’re unfalsifiable rhetorical escalations designed to end debate. If every disliked policy is treated as a "seed" of genocide, as is now common, the term loses meaning and becomes an empty rhetorical weapon. Argue specific actions with evidence and standards, or don’t -- but stop inflating unfalsifiable moral claims to the point where serious critique is impossible.
> Even if the current state of immigration policy was forged in a bipartisan agreement(it wasn't), it would be inhumane and I would condemn it.
We haven’t passed a comprehensive immigration law since 1986, and the enforcement framework in use today arises from bipartisan legislation passed in 1986, major subsequent revisions in 1996, and layers of later executive discretion exercised by administrations of both parties. We had four years of functionally non-existent enforcement, and while I cannot ascribe motive, the natural outcome was to make later enforcement incredibly difficult -- a consequence that is now plainly visible.
If you think those laws are unjust, argue that -- but don’t pretend this is some novel or uniquely partisan creation.
1939 Germany wanted to do the invading, not combat it.
Are you trying to imply that Germany didn't deport anybody in 1939?
- [deleted]
Yes. I realize I’m speaking with a Bluesky employee, and to be clear, you’re not really the audience to which I’m appealing. I don’t expect anyone working at the platform to disagree with the ideological framework under which it operates -- or even to recognize it -- and that’s fine. But let’s not pretend it’s neutral or balanced.
Really? Anecdotal as well, but I see tonnes of liberals and similar free market oriented people all over that website... I wonder if whether our preferences are giving us different impressions of the user base?
The primary differentiator for me is that bsky does not have a central algorithm, you only see content from people you follow or explicitly go looking for. Yes the "top today" overall feed is very left biased, but the default is an empty feed that you have to populate yourself.
You can't complain about content on bluesky because unlike every other platform you must choose which feeds you use.
still hard to believe that this was supposed to be a decentralized social media app, and now it's like one giant subreddit
I absolutely do not understand moving "report spam" under "report misleading". The UX for this is terrible. There are lots of bots posting SEO junk, at a rate and scale that definitely wastes resources, and now bsky has interfered with one of the signals it should be using to combat the problem.
Maybe they're paying bsky. Occam's razor.
Occam's razor takes you to a bribery conspiracy?
Money inclusive or incompetence.
yes. bribery is extremely common and simple.
Have you consumed any media in the last decades.
Their ban of “non-consensual sexual imagery” made several acquaintances of mine – furry art illustrators – move to harmful communities on questionable Mastodon servers.
I’m growing tired of those bans on legal content that isn’t inherently harmful (we are talking about fictional humanized animals here) but considered “icky” by platforms and payment processors.
So I don’t care if the AT protocol is technologically superior to ActivityPub (?) – the Mastodon community has a healthier moderation and mindset than Bluesky, in my opinion.
> Their ban of “non-consensual sexual imagery” made several acquaintances of mine – furry art illustrators – move to harmful communities on questionable Mastodon servers.
Furry art, including quite explicit furry art, is very common on bluesky and doesn’t seem be especially restricted by policy. I mean, unless they also happen to be depicting nonconsensual sexual interactions, an orthogonal concern to the furry aspect.
> I’m growing tired of those bans on legal content that isn’t inherently harmful (we are talking about fictional humanized animals here) but considered “icky” by platforms and payment processors.
Well, you are free to avail yourself of the forums that lack those policies. Now, I know you’ve complained that they are “harmful”, but... Maybe there is a reason that other forums choose to put bans in place.
> quite explicit furry art, is very common on bluesky
Now there's an understatement. It's bloody impossible to get rid of. People here are sneering at all the political content but they're ignoring the curvaceous elephant in the room. I think maybe bsky has improved things now, but a while back their adult content filters were not up to the task. When I first made an account I almost gave up on it because until I got all the right filter words set up it was nothing but weird porn whac-a-mole (actually that's probably a poor choice of words...)
FWIW, you don't need to join questionable communities to have your content on mastodon, e.g. Wordpress blogs can meaningfully participate on activitypub (people con repost, like, reply) so that may be an alternative for your friends, without the need to host a complex app, so long as they can get any Wordpress hosting. Discovery suffers tho.
Oh, thanks for the suggestion! I’ll tell them that’s an option – provided the hosting provider accepts the content too.
You're complaining about the banning of illustrations featuring furries being raped? That's what non-consentual means here? I must be misreading this.
Yes, that’s what non-consensual could mean here (it also encompasses consensual non-consent, to be accurate). This kind of content (illustrated & fictional) isn’t illegal in most jurisdictions, as far as I know.
Small aside, consent also depends on the jurisdiction – in mine, it must be verbal, so it means that if I were to draw a situation which involves a character being forced to do something but showing their consent non-verbally, it would still be non-consensual, and thus, forbidden by Bluesky’s terms of service if the PDS was hosted in my jurisdiction.
Anyway, my point is that all those illustrations should be properly labeled, but not necessarily forbidden by Bluesky’s ToS. As I understand it, fictional non-con content being banned by Bluesky means that even hosting it on one’s PDS is a no-go.
I guarantee you're reading it correctly, we're talking about Bluesky. And any community that furry rape fetishists are participating in is going to have to be "questionable." If it wasn't before they got there, it is now.
[dead]
> As the largest host of accounts and default port of entry for people joining Bluesky, we maintained 24/7 moderation operations throughout 2025, with specialized teams focused on critical areas like child safety.
so it's _not_ that hard.
I mean it's easy to say that. Roblox says that too. Bluesky is probably much easier though since it's not as big.
I disabled reposts and quoted posts to knock the noise down to 0. Since then I've enjoyed my time on Bluesky. In many ways it feels like old Twitter with simple filtering and I think that's what people wanted?!?
But Twitter felt cringe to me long before it was consumed by Musk and politics. Messing with the feed has backfired all of the big platforms. First Facebook then Twitter and most recently Instagram.
They all became a closed loop of content that is force fed. Injecting an ad in the a feed we control wasn't ever enough.
Here are some independent stats: https://bluefacts.app/bluesky-user-growth
FWIW these are based entirely on the firehose, which means it doesn't count lurkers. Our logged in DAU tends to be double the DAU of record-creators
So ~3 million DAU? Would you consider publishing your own statistics?
So the tracking pixels say almost everyone with a GMail address opened your email!
Are they lagging (and thus their latest data points to zero) or are we led to believe that all stats are down since the beginning of this week...?
It looks like an actual weird drop. Sort of mirroring a weird jump at the end of December. Here's another view that somebody else does: https://bsky.jazco.dev/stats
I haven't been particularly active on any social media for a while. It wasn't an intentional decision on my part as much as finding my social community using those tools less and less.
But I remember the early days of MySpace and Facebook with a certain nostalgia, and I'm pained to see the current state of all these tools. Such a thorough report as this gives me a little hope that perhaps an acceptable middle ground can be found for Internet communities at large scales.
I don't think I'll be hopping back in any time soon, but perhaps the research and positive advancements in social media aren't over yet.
> By the end of 2025, we had verified 4,327 accounts total: 3,567 verified directly by Bluesky and 777 verified by our network of 21 Trusted Verifiers.
It would be nice to see some more transparency around the decisions of whether an account gets verified or not. So far it’s feeling like a “cool club” with little rhyme or reason with regards to certain verification decisions.
Related to that is also the need to add more trusted verifiers. Are there any plans to allow third parties to provide verification services or is it always only going to be journalistic and educational institutions?
> So far it’s feeling like a “cool club” with little rhyme or reason with regards to certain verification decisions.
That's how Twitter started, and when the policy changed, the "cool club" members threw public tantrums (some of which still seethe to this day).
It's all very high-school cafeteria clique to me.
Regardless, it was weird to try to convert that into a "I paid" check-mark.
> Are there any plans to allow third parties to provide verification services or is it always only going to be journalistic and educational institutions?
Anyone can put together a moderation service that labels accounts that they’ve vetted or blacklisted. It wouldn’t be that taxing to host one, but the labor to maintain it is a different story.
Yes, anyone can. But unless Bluesky treats it as a trusted verifier then it doesn’t have much practical use.
If you use a 3rd party client like witchsky.app, you can trust or distrust any account you want to be a labeller and verify accounts yourself if desired.
Worth keeping in mind, the original plan was to entirely rely on domain names being used as handles for verification. All ~500 .gov handled accounts on there are almost certainly who they claim to be, unless they are able to set DNS records on those domains.
I guess I don’t appreciate the distinction between verification and an account labeler.
Good they moderate. Most interesting is that they report a 60% increase user increase, up to 41M users. Considering how bad I heard "the other network" is now I wonder why so few.
I have a look at Bluesky from time to time and there is (for me ofc) as much info/interesting stuff as I was getting from the other one before the acquisition.
there actually isn’t much good content on the platform in my experience.
it’s just people raging about trump and whatever brand they’re looking to try and cancel next.
it’s so far from the greatness of the original twitter. no tech community or content.
It’s interesting that we have such different experiences of Bluesky. There’s a thriving math community there, for example. Lots of independent journalists operating in my local area. And yes, I even chat about tech there—there’s a decent 3D printing feed, and a handful of interesting photography feeds.
I dunno. It probably depends on what you’re looking for.
while trump should be raged about — in productive ways, ideally — it's not good content. nobody is signing up to see trump rage over and over.
I have never been on twitter so I don't really know but I can agree that we see tech community in twitter but the same isn't really there in bluesky.
Although I still have a web/programming which I follow and have found some people interesting from Hackernews and others too in bluesky (emsh,simonw)
What is the HN consensus around lemmy? I really like lemmy and think that it might be better for tech stuff (almost similar to HN/reddit you can say and federated)
I used to follow lemmy c/technology but I do feel like HN is pretty unique in its own manner.
Regarding twitter alternative itself. Maybe mastodon too can be an alternative.
Another minor nitpick about bluesky is that its 200 characters limits actually really removes the tech community from too deep discussions imo. Although I guess twitter had that limit for long time too until it got removed but now I do see sometimes some tweets which are really long (sometimes even complete blog?)
It actually really (pissed?) me off so much that I ended up making a tampermonkey script which can actually write a long message automatically and split a message into 200 messages chunk and post them in a thread of sorts you can say although its very hacky and messy and it starts to glitch around 10 threads from what I remember.
It's 300 characters. Have you considered writing it on leaflet.pub or something and linking it, if it's not a back and forth? There's already a + button in the post composer to split into multiple posts.
I think there's a few tweetlonger-type services that people have tried to make, but with atproto they can at least embed that extra text into the post (100kb limit), so the site only needs to stick around to view it.
> I think there's a few tweetlonger-type services that people have tried to make, but with atproto they can at least embed that extra text into the post (100kb limit), so the site only needs to stick around to view it.
Woah I didn't know this was possible, definitely gonna try out leaflet.pub, I did know about it, let's see.
Thank you for telling me about this!
Edit: Now tried leaflet.pub, looks really cool. I am gonna use it from here on out because I used to use mataroa.blog or bearblog but they didn't have comments and comments were something I always wondered.
Its comments actually hook up to bluesky itself. this does feel interesting.
I might use it from here on out or maybe the fediverse alternative to something like this (i think its name was writty or something like this) but I am pretty sure that I am gonna nowadays write on leaflet too a litte haha!
Thanks for sharing me this. I knew about leaflet.pub but didn't know that it hooked with bsky so well. Is it a recent feature or is it the case where I maybe misremembering somethings?
How many are daily active users? I can’t find that info.
You can find more details here: https://bsky.jazco.dev/stats
These are from posts/follows/likes. According to their CTO, about that same number of accounts on top of that don't do any of that and just visit/read the site.
How many are bots?
[flagged]
> Good they moderate.
I'm not sure about that. I'd rather decide for myself what I want to read and what I do not. I'd love to not delegate this important decision to corporate overlords.
- [deleted]
> Good they moderate.
I can moderate my own feed -- the majority of people don't need, want, or enjoy an overtly paternalistic hugbox, and especially if moderation tends to be unidirectionally skewed in one political direction. It's not surprising that growth is slow.
On one side, sure, there's "overly paternalistic" moderation, but, on the other, there's AI powered revenge porn running rampant, so I'd argue there should be at least some moderation.
Calling a juvenile bikini edit "AI-powered revenge porn" is incorrect by definition. Revenge porn involves the non-consensual distribution of real, explicit sexual imagery of an identifiable person with the intent to cause harm.
Lumping sophomoric image edits into that category is exactly the kind of moral and definitional inflation being actively used to manufacture pretext for suppressing speech under the guise of "moderation."
You're right, we must be accurate in our terms, but that misclassifcation isn't worse than the act itself. The generation of deepfake non-consensual sexual images isn't revenge porn, because the woman in the image didn't even given initial consent. It being used to harass women is still a problem and is the sort of thing that requires moderation. It's not "sophomoric", it's exploitative and, in some states, illegal.
A lot of people joined in late 2024, resulting in a peak of around 2.7M daily users, but most of those users ended up leaving soon after, likely because the site was just one big echo chamber of far left American politics around that time.
It doesn't seem to be as bad anymore, a quick glance at the public feed suggests that the percentage of political posts has gone down, but considering how many times the word "toxic" appears in this linked blogpost, I'm guessing they're still banning anyone who expresses the "wrong" opinions, so the userbase is unlikely to grow much further in the future. It seems to have plateaued at around 1.2M daily likers.
Source for the stats: https://bsky.jazco.dev/stats
> likely because the site was just one big echo chamber of far left American politics around that time.
The US does not have a "far left" in any significant numbers, and never has. At least not in a self-aware sense.
Maybe you meant to say liberal, to which I'd agree.
That's not to say there isn't a "left" or "far left" on Bluesky, but there's no way it's a majority.
I agree echo chambers are a problem there, which is why I only posted there briefly before leaving. One feature that seemed to exacerbate the formation of echo chambers was users sharing and blindly trusting mass block lists to silence things they didn't want to hear (leftists and liberals alike).
Meanwhile my facebook feed is nothing but clickbait engagement with local nazis. It's such a hard right echo chamber now, it makes me sick. Clear evidence of multiple international bot accounts flooding groups with propaganda every 30 minutes. It's a flood.
There's really a problem that needs to be solved here. I really think anonymous or phony posting needs to stop. It's not helpful here. All it does is amplify false talking points with a "Fake it til you make it", "the loudest voice wins" methodology.
But unfortunately, engagement is financially incentivized now. So the big corps reap $$$$$ while the public burns itself down.
Agreed.
There is hope, but it requires enough people to care and act accordingly:
> my facebook feed is nothing but clickbait engagement with local nazis
Can you explain what exactly you mean by "local nazis"? Are you getting ads for Nazi barber shops? Sieg Heil Heating & Cooling? Hitler Juice Bar and Bubble Tea?
If this was such a huge problem I'm sure we would have heard of it before.
> The US does not have a "far left" in any significant numbers, and never has.
Bluesky does, however. Clearly they've made that their target market, but that's also why growing beyond that base seems to be difficult for them,
No. Pre-Musk twitter was a liberal cesspool (and now it's a conservative one). Most of those liberals jumped ship to Bluesky.
Again, that's not to say lefists don't exist, but they are a tiny fraction, and always were a tiny fraction no matter what platform.
Don't rule out bots that exist in numbers to make the actual left appear like a deranged spectacle as a form of controlled opposition. Both parties of capital interests have a role in and benefit from these.
The issue isn’t whether “the far left” exists in large numbers in the abstract; it’s how platform design, moderation norms, and social incentives shape which views are amplified -- and which are penalized. On Bluesky, the boundaries of acceptable discourse are unusually narrow and strongly enforced, which predictably produces ideological clustering.
As for bots or “controlled opposition”: you don’t need conspiracy theories to explain why a heavily moderated platform with explicit cultural norms converges on a particular worldview. I’m disinclined to apply anything beyond Occam’s razor when accounting for “deranged spectacle” behavior; ordinary selection effects are sufficient.
> On Bluesky, the boundaries of acceptable discourse are unusually narrow and strongly enforced, which predictably produces ideological clustering.
This isn't in conflict with my original comment.
> As for bots or “controlled opposition”: you don’t need conspiracy theories to explain why a heavily moderated platform with explicit cultural norms converges on a particular worldview. I’m disinclined to apply anything beyond Occam’s razor when accounting for “deranged spectacle” behavior; ordinary selection effects are sufficient.
These aren't conspiracy theories, and they pre-date and extend beyond Bluesky. They are easily observable patterns in most modern news media and social media. For one, silos are much easier to advertise to. Follow the money, like everything else.
I’ve encountered the same rhetoric, tactics, and moral framing in offline activist spaces for years, long before Bluesky or current platform dynamics. Online platforms don’t invent this; they surface and concentrate it. The underlying attitudes -- maximalism, moral absolutism, tolerance for disruption, and readiness to analogize opponents to historical evil -- are not artifacts of bots or manipulation. They’re characteristic features of a political subculture.
If anything, the mistake is treating the "reasonable", aspirational version as more real than the people who consistently show up, organize, and speak — and then assuming the most visible expressions must be "controlled opposition."
> I’ve encountered the same rhetoric, tactics, and moral framing in offline activist spaces for years, long before Bluesky or current platform dynamics. Online platforms don’t invent this; they surface and concentrate it.
Once again, we seem to be in agreement on this.
> The underlying attitudes -- maximalism, moral absolutism, tolerance for disruption, and readiness to analogize opponents to historical evil -- are not artifacts of bots or manipulation. They’re characteristic features of a political subculture.
These things are not mutually exclusive. It's both, and people (and their bots) across the entire political spectrum are guilty of involvement.
[flagged]
Labeling everyone you don't agree with as an "asshole" is the sort of thing that usually leads to echo chambers forming.
When everyone they disagree with on anything substantive is an asshole, while accepting the same or worse behavior and tone if it aligns with their views, it's absolutely not "basic spam filtering".
"disagree", another one of those words.
You've missed the original point.
From the left's perspective, the liberals deserve muting and are spam, and same from the other way around. It's siloed echo chambers everywhere.
Part of it is unrealistic expectations of users thinking they're right about their world views. But part of it is platforms making features that amplify the former.
>The US does not have a "far left" in any significant numbers, and never has. At least not in a self-aware sense.
Are they just disproportionately powerful then? Because the US does definitely have consistent far left trends and movements that overtake the mainstream. The OK hand gesture hysteria is maybe an evident example, but land acknowledgments? DEI statements? Fatphobia? Defund the police? All of these originate from far left positions.
No. Once again you're referring to liberals even if you don't know it.
You might be confused because several forces want you to be exactly that:
1) The right lumps/conflates everything from centrist liberal to far left as "the far radical left" with no in-between, which blurs many lines.
2) Center liberals who want a social media veneer they can feel good about will literally pose as leftists/marxists, but if you look at their other beliefs and behaviors (were they trying to sink Bernie, or not?) then it becomes immediately obvious they're ultimately loyal to the Dem party, and that means center liberals serving capital interests.
But I can't blame you or anyone else for falling for the above unless you've seen enough to know, like following both of Bernie's presidential runs and how he was systematically smeared by both liberals and their corporate media.
Identity politics / DEI / etc are a liberal obsession. Class politics is the focus of the actual far left.
>but if you look at their other beliefs and behaviors (were they trying to sink Bernie, or not?)
...No? Bernie was super popular specifically with this audience. The more liberal people described themselves as, the more they supported Bernie: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-defines-the-sander...
You can take the stance that nobody knows what any of these terms mean I guess, but then the picture gets kind of absurd, left-wing materialism loses all meaning, the church loses all relationship with the right, hell, from that standpoint Donald Trump campaigned as a leftist I guess? He did have a recurrent discourse around jobs and the working class.
> You can take the stance that nobody knows what any of these terms mean I guess
It's not that they don't know. It's that they bend definitions to their advantage depending on what the context dictates. 538 is exactly the kind of outlet one would expect to do such a thing.
https://jacobin.com/2024/11/liberals-bernie-working-class-tr...
It seems the left-right spectrum serves better to confuse than to differentiate, and that the most productive discussions unfold when we talk issues instead.
They publish this because the EU requires it, not out of the goodness of their hearts.
They also perform age checks because various local laws require it, not because they are evil.
They also perform age checks because they are evil and complicit with obviously detrimental local laws, not because they want to protect the children.
I don't think they fall under DMA at this size yet?
- [deleted]
So EU is the MVP
It's truly sad to see social networks being complicit in doxxing their users under the guise of "think of the children" by requiring age checks.
Complicit in the sense of complying with the law. What would you prefer they do?
If it makes you feel any better, it's more trivially bypassed than any website age-gate I've ever seen. (that's more complicated than a checkbox)
I would like to see some visible resistance from internet companies.
Of course they can comply and then in five years nothing more than cat pictures gets posted online.
(Not that this would be inherently bad)
violate the law