If I wanted a social media app of millions of users to only provide information I am interested in and agree with I would simply buy an existing one. Although I probably wouldn't turn it into the nazi, csam machine that someone else did.
Otherwise I figure I would have to develop some media literacy to determine who is a worthwhile follow and put in some work to curate my feed to my interests.
Can't be surprised when you press the 'drink from a firehose' button and get a ton of material you don't want.
The thing with Bluesky is it's built on At-proto. If Bluesky itself broke bad, you don't start over, you just move your profile to another At-proto interface. Kinda like moving a website to a different host. The protocol itself is an open standard. You can build your own Bluesky to interface with it and use your own feed algorithms if you choose. And yes, I know no average person is doing that individually. But it's part of a larger effort to bring back the open web with open protocols, counter to the current silo-ing that is going on that makes as all the product of corporations to profit from. Of course it's not perfect, but it's a far sight better than having Mecha-Hitler generate CSAM for you.
Oh, and that video Firebot was talking about? I assume it's this one:
Grok spreading misinfo.
Or this one:
Quote:
CBC's fact check team geolocated this video to Tehran, but Elon Musk's AI chatbot Grok is telling X users it's a manipulated video of Los Angeles.
To make the claims as have been made above by many are to be completely ignorant to reality. There are lots of local accounts, diverse subjects, and more being added. It's great for science news, because researchers tend not to want to hang out with Nazis, and have found Bluesky better. No, you won't see Tristan Hopper because his racist posts would probably get him banned.
BlueSky may not get you transphobia or far right takes, but it can certainly get you anti-zionist / antisemitic posts because of the userbase especially if you start getting in the weeds. Different beasts, same coin.
A twisted algorithm can push agendas ahead of other topics (see Musk / X and the Tumbler Ridge example I just gave)
If the userbase itself is a problem (such as deep bias against zionists or jews in general for example), you will see users themselves push misinformation ahead of real legitimate content. News get drowned out by fake news.
A user based platform isn't necessarily better, when many said users were on the fringe or further left of the spectrum to begin with having left / cancelled X. If BlueSky was able to cater and become the X replacement with a whole spectrum, we should see improvements in balance (and I get that's one of your points), but that's not how it is today.
Hence, my example on AI / AI news / Tech news. Other platforms (Instagram, Facebook, Youtube, Reddit, X) all provide me with info I am looking for, based on algorithm and understanding of what I am looking for. There are of course oppositions but you will generally get what you want
On BlueSky, the anti-AI crowd being so large, and with it being user based versus algorithm, immediately floods anti-AI posts as if to purposedly drown and cancel topics not liked by said userbase
Subjectively, this is not necessarily better. You can have a majority kill off legitimate topics and discussion if user controlled. In in the case of controversial topics, this is exactly what is happening, while political outrage (i.e. Trump's baseball cap) flood out non-political uses of the words.
It enhances bias and echo chambers. It also makes it more susceptible to misinformation on certain topics.
"Deep bias against Zionists..." if that's among the criticisms you feel hold weight in this discussion, I don't see how that is somehow equivalent or worse than whatever is happening in Xitterville. Not only do they openly platform and pay anti-Semites, the platform is owned by one. But you conclude people may have criticisms of Zionists stealing land and murdering people shows bias?
Why don't you go ahead and try posting some anti-Semitic stuff and see how long your account lasts on Xitter vs Bluesky. And if you see that on Bluesky, you can report it. They actually have a safety team. Hell, Alex Winters had his account flagged for SPAM when he was trying to help the citizens of Gaza survive an onslaught from...Zionists.
Again, no, it's not perfect. But it's a hell of a lot better than the alternatives. "Echo chambers" don't improve by letting Nazis in. Maybe some of the not-nazi Conservatives on Xitter with actual reasonable defendable positions should find a home there, instead of hanging out in Nazi-ville. or maybe they just all feel real comfortable on the couch there. That has nothing to do with the Bluesky userbase.
I feel like you are coming to conclusions before actually using it. When I started I wasn't sold either, but once you start adding what you want to your feed, it works well. Try it for a few weeks. And maybe it doesn't have absolutely all of everything you want, which is fine too. And maybe it's not for everyone. I don't care. But the misrepresentations are garbage.
I created an account on Mastodon to secure my username when it was the early favourite to replace Twitter, took one look at everything required to use it, and thought "there's no way this is gonna catch on".
Y'know, I really looked forward to the opportunity that presented itself when Twitter was being turned into a cesspool, that it might result in people just not using it and rejecting that form of social media altogether. Turns out it just resulted in creating multiple disparate pools of group-think.
I'm happy to stay a non-X/non-BlueSky-using luddite at this point.
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Typical dumb take.
The Following User Says Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
Here's a commentary from the Peace Research Institute of Oslo that talks about AI and staged photos that human rights organizations (including Amnesty International) have used in the past, which brings up a debate or whether using misinformation can be justified if the intent is to highlight suffering and stir empathy. They talk about AI fakes used in Columbia, Greece, and Gaza.
Social media is the worst though, not just for promoting outright fakes, but also coopting the suffering of others. It's not helpful at all to the people who actually are suffering because you need to really question everything.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 03-11-2026 at 01:24 PM.
Y'know, I really looked forward to the opportunity that presented itself when Twitter was being turned into a cesspool
How long were you on Twitter lol. It's always been a cesspool, but it used to be a fun, loveable, 140 character cesspool. The people's cesspool, if you will. Now it's just racists and bots and crypto bros and OnlyFans whores and yeah it just sucks now.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following User Says Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
I know you meant well, but did you try searching for "AI" or "artificial intelligence" in there for custom feeds prior to suggesting it?
And it doesn't help any, the tags also still get nearly full anti-AI. Sorry strike that, as I was typing this I just got full AI porn and lolitas by post 5 (good thing I was browsing on my phone). Yikes. The dangers of no algorithm rears its head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
"Deep bias against Zionists..." if that's among the criticisms you feel hold weight in this discussion, I don't see how that is somehow equivalent or worse than whatever is happening in Xitterville. Not only do they openly platform and pay anti-Semites, the platform is owned by one. But you conclude people may have criticisms of Zionists stealing land and murdering people shows bias?
You realize that talking of zionist as a group in the matter you do is in itself deeply antisemitic...right?
Replace the word Zionist with Muslim in that sentence and read that sentence out loud. That's why you don't do it. You can be a Zionist and be completely against military action and the death of others.
In today’s context, the word Zionist is not only used as an insult but also as a disguised form of antisemitism: a code word in conspiracy theories and stereotypes about power, money, or secret plots. In this way, criticism of Israeli policy and antisemitic imagery sometimes risk becoming intertwined.
Stop doing it.
And that's not the criticisms I am talking about but calls for deaths. I saw BlueSky posts of people praising Allah for the extermination of Zionists in Tel Aviv. October 7 2023 was excused as an attack on Zionists. To many including Hamas, anyone living in Israel is considered a Zionist.
Just because Iran's regime uses Islam as reason to indoctrinate and spread terror, doesn't mean you can criticize and hate Muslims, likewise, Israel using Zionism as a reason to steal land and murder Palestinians doesn't give a carte blanche to be hostile to Zionists as an entity.
There's a right way to criticize. Don't fall into antisemitic traps if its not your intent and avoid that type of language.
You realize that talking of zionist as a group in the matter you do is in itself deeply antisemitic...right? You consistently do this.
Replace the word Zionist with Muslim in that sentence and read that sentence out loud. That's why you don't do it. You can be a Zionist and be completely against military action and the death of others.
As a person of Jewish origin I think your analogy is not precise. Zionist is not the equivalent to Muslim. The equivalent to Muslim would be Jewish. The term Zionist may be a little more broad than Fuzz is intending, but not by much. It's basically a group of people who believe Jews should have sovereignty over their homeland. The problem is then you get into questions like "what exactly is their homeland". I agree that you can be a Zionist and against military action. You can also be a Nazi and against the extermination of Jews. But in that example the peaceful Nazi is directly or indirectly supporting the non-peaceful ones. I think the same can largely be said for Zionists.
The Following User Says Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
How long were you on Twitter lol. It's always been a cesspool, but it used to be a fun, loveable, 140 character cesspool. The people's cesspool, if you will. Now it's just racists and bots and crypto bros and OnlyFans whores and yeah it just sucks now.
Again, I wasn't, and I liked it that way. I found it the most annoying and least interesting of the social media platforms I had tried, and even when I tried to use it in a professional context, I found I just couldn't be arsed to use it. It also annoyed me to no end that news organizations suddenly started using the over-the-top reactions of a handful of chronically online idiots on Twitter to gauge real-world sentiment on pretty much every subject, if not sometimes as the basis for an entire article.
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Typical dumb take.
The Following User Says Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
Again, I wasn't, and I liked it that way. I found it the most annoying and least interesting of the social media platforms I had tried, and even when I tried to use it in a professional context, I found I just couldn't be arsed to use it. It also annoyed me to no end that news organizations suddenly started using the over-the-top reactions of a handful of chronically online idiots on Twitter to gauge real-world sentiment on pretty much every subject, if not sometimes as the basis for an entire article.
If one good thing came out of Musk taking over Twitter it's that journalists no longer treat 200 people freaking out about something on Twitter/X/Bluesky as a reflection of popular sentiment.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Some of you haven't the slightest idea of how to curate your feeds and it shows.
When I still used the popular social media sites I never saw the extremist garbage because I stuck to my followers/subscriptions and never ventured further unless I chose to search a certain topic. Any accounts that started getting toxic were simply removed.
I quit Facebook and Twitter (never X) for ethical reasons, not because I was getting blasted with unwanted rhetoric.
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Yamer For This Useful Post:
As a person of Jewish origin I think your analogy is not precise. Zionist is not the equivalent to Muslim. The equivalent to Muslim would be Jewish. The term Zionist may be a little more broad than Fuzz is intending, but not by much. It's basically a group of people who believe Jews should have sovereignty over their homeland. The problem is then you get into questions like "what exactly is their homeland". I agree that you can be a Zionist and against military action. You can also be a Nazi and against the extermination of Jews. But in that example the peaceful Nazi is directly or indirectly supporting the non-peaceful ones. I think the same can largely be said for Zionists.
You are correct yes, it's not the exact equivalent.
But when used as an stereotype in a certain way, it may have the same effect. While Fuzz was not meaning to do it in a derogatory matter (and I fully believe that is not his intent which is why I said to be careful), there are others that do including many of Israel's direct enemies who don't necessarily see a line. Even Hamas claims to make a difference between Jewish and Zionist in recent years, but Zionist can target all Jews within Israel.
I think Israel's actions on Gaza and the West Bank under the guide of Zionism are absolutely deplorable and I've been one to heavily criticize their policies including genocide. I also believe Israel and Palestine as states should co-exist in a 2 party state but that's clearly wishful thinking.
Zionism as a movement started as a peaceful settlement and was not a violent movement (but as a movement and goal inherently conflicts with rights of others).
Anyways sorry I really don't like to get into Zionist / Israel nuance discussions and try to actively abstain from them as there are obvious reasons to be very against Israel action and Zionist movement led actions and but there can be lines crossed at times that fall into the wrong path. Felt that particular line was starting to cross it.
I specifically said "Zionists stealing land and murdering people." Not "Zionists struggling for the peaceful existence of Israel." You could sub in, say, Americans for Zionists and it would not be any different. Not all Americans are stealing oil and blowing up the Middle East, but the news headlines say that.
Saying "Jew" would have been an unjust generalization as well. And it was in response to "deep bias against zionists or jews in general for example". I said it because I think assuming bias because people are critical of unjust actions isn't really bias. It's just recognizing the people doing it are free to be criticized in such a way. Essentially being critical is not bias by default. And that's not to say all criticism of Zionists is not bias.
And again, like, if you want to see ugly #### said about Zionists, go hang out on Xitter for 5 minutes. It's not even close.
You are correct yes, it's not the exact equivalent.
But when used as an stereotype in a certain way, it may have the same effect. While Fuzz was not meaning to do it in a derogatory matter (and I fully believe that is not his intent which is why I said to be careful), there are others that do including many of Israel's direct enemies who don't necessarily see a line. Even Hamas claims to make a difference between Jewish and Zionist in recent years, but Zionist can target all Jews within Israel.
I think Israel's actions on Gaza and the West Bank under the guide of Zionism are absolutely deplorable and I've been one to heavily criticize their policies including genocide. I also believe Israel and Palestine as states should co-exist in a 2 party state but that's clearly wishful thinking.
Zionism as a movement started as a peaceful settlement and was not a violent movement (but as a movement and goal inherently conflicts with rights of others).
Anyways sorry I really don't like to get into Zionist / Israel nuance discussions and try to actively abstain from them as there are obvious reasons to be very against Israel action and Zionist movement led actions and but there can be lines crossed at times that fall into the wrong path. Felt that particular line was starting to cross it.
Well, no, you didn’t tell him to be careful or that he was starting to cross a line, you called it deeply antisemitic.
Personally, I think you’re biting off more than you can chew here. You yourself have suggested Zionism is comparable to something inherently genocidal, which falls outside the standard you’re trying to hold Fuzz to, and given that Red Slinger (who I respect as someone with very measured, thoughtful opinions) is course correcting you here, I think the correct choice is to take the course correction as opposed to trying to explain a movement to him he seems to better understand.
Some of you haven't the slightest idea of how to curate your feeds and it shows.
When I still used the popular social media sites I never saw the extremist garbage because I stuck to my followers/subscriptions and never ventured further unless I chose to search a certain topic. Any accounts that started getting toxic were simply removed.
I quit Facebook and Twitter (never X) for ethical reasons, not because I was getting blasted with unwanted rhetoric.
Totally agree.
I'll be honest, I didn't really realize how important curation is.
Being intentional about your social media usage is hard, especially when there is a built-in option to just let the algorithm do it, but it is sooo much better, and so much more functional when you put some effort into it.
I also left Twitter, and Facebook, because I couldn't figure out a way to make them useful enough to deal with it, but Youtube, that's one I where I could prune out the offending topics, use the search more effectively, and turn it back into something useful I could continue to enjoy.
It's when you let the feed run what you see that makes it problematic.
I found it the most annoying and least interesting of the social media platforms I had tried, and even when I tried to use it in a professional context, I found I just couldn't be arsed to use it. It also annoyed me to no end that news organizations suddenly started using the over-the-top reactions of a handful of chronically online idiots on Twitter to gauge real-world sentiment on pretty much every subject, if not sometimes as the basis for an entire article.
