stop using their happy little fascist platform
this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2025
752 points (97.8% liked)
Technology
4951 readers
259 users here now
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Post guidelines
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I knew bluesky was absolutely fucked when I check it once and it was literally giving billionaires screen time over regular users to simp for trump. X is full fash , bluesky is fash lite
PSA: Sharing that information was almost certainly a GDPR violation in the EU. It may also have been a criminal offense under German law (§126a StGB).
Personal data in official documents which police reports falls under are explicitly excluded by article 86.
Not quite. Such official documents may be published by the government, but only if provided by law. It doesn't mean that the data may be used by others.
EU data protection activists are fighting against such transparency rules. I'm thinking of Noyb's lawsuit against the Swedish government, in particular. Sweden has a very strong tradition of transparency.
That German law was explicitly made to criminalize such lists compiled from public data. If the context suggests that the information is meant to enable illegal harm to the people, then it's criminal to publish the information. In the German understanding, that is fighting Nazis because Nazis create such lists of their enemies.
Sharing publicly available information is a GDPR violation? Wouldn't that be on the person who originally made the info public.
GDPR works like copyright in that regard. Just because someone publishes something, doesn't mean you may re-publish it.
This data is especially problematic since it is about people's political views. That's defined as sensitive data. By default, it is a violation to even create or store such data at all, even if you kept it private. You could only do that legally if you benefit from specific exceptions.
Please gtfo with those nasty facts. This is Lemmy.
Fuck bluesky.
Anyone using it over Mastodon to protest twitter is a moron.
Obay but can I use mastodon in a way that let's me choke on corporate dick? Because choking on corporate dick is kind of my favorite thing. Whole reason inhere.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Devil's advocate:
You can either protect everyone's privacy, or you can protect no one's.
Doxxing is a privacy issue. It's not "okay if it's someone you don't like". I'm sure if the tables were reversed and people on the right had doxxed a bunch of left-leaning people, the left would be up-in-arms about it, demanding that it be removed and for the people who posted it to be suspended. But because they're far-right, it's suddenly okay?
I hate the far-right, don't get me wrong. But get off the high-horse. Companies can either protect everyone from doxxing, or they can protect no one from doxxing. There's no in-between just because the people being doxxed are people you find repugnant.
The problem playing devil's advocate is you're defending the devil. Running to the all or nothing edge is simply an attempt to end the discussion. "If Nazis can't have privacy, nobody can." There is an in-between, and conveniently it's called moderation.
Are we equally of the opinion that hate speech should not be moderated? Are threats without action to be defended unilaterally? It's not important what the answers are, it's that there is a world in between absolutist ideals. There are alternatives. We can discuss them.
Companies are also capable of navigating this space, and should be responsible for doing so if they are entitled to their platform. The idea that their hands are tied to all or nothing is ignorant if not apologist. If the best you can do with 10's of millions of dollars is helplessness, perhaps you deserve all the criticism. The devil needs better attorneys.
Moderation and discussion are 100% the way to go. For companies to decide who they can and cant dox though seems hard. We all have something about us that others don't agree with and someone could justify you being doxed. Nazis went through the Nuremberg trials to decide their levels of Nazism and there aren't many that agree with the results. I'm not saying it's right to protect Nazi's (most deserve a punch in the fafe) but when anyone can label anyone else as a nazi, policing this is difficult.
I strongly doubt they were banned for posting a police report.
Publicly available police reports.
I'm completely against doxxing. But there were public reports. That's censorship.
That’s also what many other social media would do because it’s easier to ban posting of personal information regardless of where it came from because you can’t trust moderation you outsourced to some third world country to do proper checks.
Example:
Reddit is quite open and pro-free speech, but it is not okay to post someone's personal information or post links to personal information. This includes links to public Facebook pages and screenshots of Facebook pages with the names still legible.
Posting someone's personal information will get you banned. When posting screenshots, be sure to edit out any personally identifiable information to avoid running afoul of this rule.
Dunno if Bsky has something similar but it’s more of a cost optimisation than anything so people are getting pointlessly angry at individual companies rather than the system which has this sort of behaviour as a guaranteed outcome.
That doesn't change the aspect of it being censorship. It just means that a risk adverse company is risk adverse to the degree that they will employ censorship to maintain that aversion to risk. At the end of the day, it's censorship. The rationale for why they've employed it is notwithstanding.
Censorship can be good and ban on personal information sharing prevents witch hunts. Reddit banned it only after it resulted in dead people which is too late in my book.
Your example is people randomly sharing information. That is not the same as a Government entity after following the process outlined in the law, releasing information related to that Government action. We know who is awarded contracts, we know where tax payer money is going to, and so on because of disclosure requirements by Government entities.
When an elected entity has acted in a manner accordance to law, that action ought to reasonably disclose the subject of that action. That's not to say 100% it always must be this way, but this is why we allow the public to comment on changes to those disclosure requirements.
I would like for you to understand, there's a very fundamental difference between "random people" and "people via a method given power to rule over other people." That fundamental difference between the two is key to the point here.
Ban on sharing of personal information in social media isn't intended to stop witch hunts against innocent people, it's intended to stop witch hunts, period. I'm certain you'd speak different if the roles were reversed and I imagine that won't take long because most politicians treat judiciary as one of the spoils these days.
load more comments
(6 replies)
ill never understand how jack fucking dorsey is regrifting the internet AGAIN with a centralized censorship engine.
fuck this dude entirely
load more comments
(20 replies)
shouldn't really surprise anyone. Didn't their CEO like several months ago pretty much defend a known fascist/tranphob on the platform and essentially told people who complained about it to "not post" out of protest? Also Bluesky is extremely quick to bend to the whims of whatever government body makes demands. They were one of the first sites to quickly implement age verification in the UK I believe.
load more comments
(27 replies)
Oh no, surprise, censorship on a centralized platform. No one saw that coming.
That place came and went for me in a matter of days. It's yet another shithole compromised by billionaires. There is a never ending supply of Americans who when contacted with $$$$$$$$$ offers, take them to sell out our Democracy.
THESE people should be the first to wear blindfolds when finding out their sentence.
BlueSky users?
view more: next ›