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. That's how you end up with power-tripping mods, propaganda bubbles, and censorship (exactly what fascists are doing with X, fb, tiktok, etc).

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 8 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

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 2 points 17 hours 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.

[–] edible_funk@sh.itjust.works 4 points 19 hours 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.

[–] Shimitar@downonthestreet.eu 9 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 6 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago

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.

[–] stabby_cicada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

Apparently you slept through the part where mainstream social media did try to censor, ban, and deplatform that dictator's supporters, and it backfired.

I mean, Twitter literally banned Donald Trump, and he just started his own Twitter clone. Mainstream social media banned COVID disinformation and now we have an anti-vaxxer running the US Department of Health. Probably hundreds of thousands of people got deplatformed for claiming the 2020 elections were stolen, and more people now believe Trump won in 2020 then they did in 2021.

Biden pressured big social media to censor ideas he didn't want spreading. The ideas spread anyway. All Biden did was show he was afraid of those ideas and make his enemies look like martyrs.

I really can't think of a better example of how "deplatforming Nazis" doesn't work than the last five years of American history.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 17 hours ago

I see what you're saying and you make a good point honestly.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago

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.