Comment on Bluesky just verified ICE
Dojan@pawb.social 3 weeks agoYou know that the problem isn’t that they’re verifying the gestapo, it’s that they’re platforming and subsequently legitimising them.
Wake up. Ice, being government, it’s already legitimized enough in real life.
What difference would it make in the social media. Better if they are out in the open in social media instead, at least they get responsible for what they post, officially.
What difference would it make in the social media.
Apparently you slept through a fascist dictator rising to power by manipulating desperate people, specifically on social media.
I see what you’re saying and you make a good point honestly.
Like the white house, department of homeland security, and others before them, the account will get no traction and be ignored. It is currently working really well on bluesky.
When they mandate visibility a la Twitter, that is the problem. But they don’t.
they’re platforming and subsequently legitimising them.
You could make that argument about them being allowed to have an account at all, but simply marking that account in such a way that informs the userbase that it’s not a troll/parody account or something, but the actual organization?
That doesn’t “platform” them, they’re already on the platform at the time this happened. And confirming that something asserted to be true, is in fact true, is a good thing.
WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Eh. I don’t use bsky, and think most current ICE staff should be imprisoned for terrorism for the rest of their lives, but I don’t want any communications services to decide which entities should and shouldn’t be verified.
The goal should be an open protocol where users/orgs can sign messages cryptographically (like PGP) and every other user can decide which users, feeds, or algos they subscribe to without censorship. Like, if I subscribe to my friends and family, or friends of friends, I don’t want any form of moderation between them and me, but the freedom to sub to moderated topics is also necessary for public feeds/comms.
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
On one hand I see your point. On t’other, we’ve tried complete neutrality and it failed, maybe it’s time for a communications platform where we hold people to a standard?
Serinus@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
We haven’t, really. Our “complete neutrality” is infested with troll farms, where people are employed to make hundreds of accounts to spread propaganda.
I’m thinking the answer is to implement a huge barrier for troll farms, but a small speed bump for real people.
It could be oauth with Steam or your cell provider, where you can make an account if you’ve spent over $250 with them. Actual credit history would work. You can combine these and allow any of them, which might let one person make 3-4 accounts, maybe, but that’s still limited enough to make things difficult for troll farms.
There is an issue where billionaires that want to influence us have absolutely absurd resources, and maybe paying $1000 per account isn’t enough of a barrier for them. But at least it gives us a chance for the bans to stick significantly more than they do now.
WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Who’s we? You think you get to decide? Unless the protocol is 100% open source, decentralised, user controlled by default, and resistant to censorship, the oligarchs and corporations will ALWAYS be able to seize control and use it against us.
If you genuinely think the solution is yet another billionaire controlled closed platform, a bunch of bootlicking gatekeepers to censor and moderate it, that can be sold, transferred, and monetised in any way, at any time… welp, the modern tech world must be an enigma to you.
edible_funk@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Nah balls to that. This is simple paradox of tolerance shit, anti-social ideology doesn’t get a platform in the marketplace of ideas.
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 2 weeks ago
Nah, misinterpretation. Censorship doesn’t stop shit. Suppression of intolerance means stopping it through coercion or criminalization.
Moreover, intolerance doesn’t mean the baby-brained notion on the internet of espousing offensive, exclusionary views. The nonviolent & noncoercive are still tolerant. Intolerance means rejection of rational discourse through appeal to force: coercive/violent action or incitement of it to overthrow a tolerant society.
Karl Popper opposed censorship/argued for free inquiry & open discourse.
Censorship (or willfully blinding ourselves to information) plays no part in suppressing authoritarianism, and it’s extremely moronic to pretend it does.
edible_funk@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Well that’s fucking stupid when we know deplatforming works. Also you’re using specific definitions to deliberately misunderstand the paradox of tolerance so this is a stupid argument in the first place. If you allow those that break the social contract to remain in society, they will cause society to break down as that is their express and explicit goal. A fucking high school intellect wrote that garbage article. Also, fuck pacifism, that’s a tool of fascists.
Yeah we’re well past that point and have been definitely since alternative facts got normalized in discourse. This is a post-truth society. And next time use your own words instead of a gpt.
lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org 3 weeks ago
So you want a Nazi bar. Ok.
Omnipitaph@reddthat.com 3 weeks ago
That’s a nice strawman you’ve built for yourself. What’s their name?
explodicle@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
BlueSky