The labeler attaches to the account, not the post. Bluesky is telling you that according to user reports and in the opinion of some Bluesky internal system this dude posts intolerance a lot. The whole point of the label is to avoid having to scrutinize every single post from a known serial offender.
No its not, Jesse Singal has been listed by GLAAD's "Accountability Project" as a voice of hate .
Im not saying Graham Hancock of "everything is aliens" fame doesn't get to have a following either, but they don't get to masquerade as legitimate when the consensus is otherwise.
No nothing he did discredits the mission in anyway nor unfortunately is it atypical for CEOs to behave that way, but like always, a higher bar on the left.GLAAD formed 1985 to protest the New York Post's defamatory AIDS coverage, GLAAD puts pressure on media to end homophobic reporting like this.
yes, Its an privately funded NGO, meaning its not funded by anyone who does not want to fund it. save that energy for the tax payer dollars or the ADL, who claims to be a Jewish antidefamation league but spends resources defending the country and politics of Israel.
Heres more. https://buff.ly/41mow4E
It is important that LGBT people get help, respect in society, equality, productive life. It is important to take seriously diagnosing trans, one can seriously harm a young person, who did not determined yet his/her social and sexual standing
What I find remarkable is that Jesse’s post sharing the link to his article was marked as intolerant. However, one I was not clear in that, and two it may be because the entire account is marked as intolerant.
A) it's not
B) everything on the account is labeled intolerant if the account itself is labeled intolerant. This has been how it's always worked. Don't poop your pampers.
It’s a trans friendly site. So what? You’re welcome to go back to Twitter where you can’t even say the word cisgender. It strat your own on the AT protocol. I’m glad the site knows what it stands for.
the substantive issue regarding what constitutes intolerance is a different question than the choose-your-own moderation approach, which has its pros and cons
There's already a HUGE platform for Singal, one that actually promotes his intolerant transphobia and injects it into people's timelines.
This, however, is NOT THAT platform.
If you want a site where right-wingers can spew all the hate they want, Twitter is right over there. One of the reasons why people come here is to get away from that, so they have every incentive to actually enforce the rules against rightoids like Singal.
blocks and lists are all public info on this platform, you can always see who's blocking whom and who's on who's lists, regardless of what app makes those calls though
Pseudo-intellectual transphobe being labeled intolerant is extremely accurate. It’s incredibly easy for you fucking freaks to leave trans people alone and yet here you are.
I don't agree.
It's a defensive posture from a few radicals inside the BS moderation team.
With the influx of liberals and centrists coming from X, there's going to be a lot of pressure on them to abandon their dogmatic anti-free speech approach.
BS will be a much better place in 2-3 months.
Case in point: the "Intolerant" label seems to have been removed on @jessesingal.com's thread about the lawsuit vs. Olson-Kennedy.
Probably one overzealous millenial on the BS moderation team who pulled the trigger and was then overruled by more senior sensible colleagues.
Ideas that are not masquerading as facts that can be openly challenged should never be censored unless they can be shown to be motivated by EXTREME irrational animos and hatred. Ad hominem attacks, being counter productive to valuable discourse, should be another red line.
Nah, it's good. He is a POS that has previously shared leaked trans patient care not sufficiently anonymized and he continues to make transphobic claims
I have to assume someone is mass reporting Jesse's posts and the Bluesky team just doesn't have a good process for dealing with that. They can't actually think this is "intolerance"...
I've been following him for a long time on X and I don't think he's even slightly "intolerant." He's just a journalist covering a very contentious issue and has views that are not on the far-left of public opinion. If that's considered "intolerant" by the content moderators, this place is doomed.
Considering the circumstances, this is a very considerate threading of the needle by the platform. Banning such an account isn’t necessary, but placing it under such moderation can avoid a lot of piling on while showing care to those who don’t want to see it.
I think you have an incredibly detached view of what the spectrum of views on the issue are, which may be explained by the fact that you don't take any issue with his dishonesty
It was doing fine before you showed up and will continue to. Something not working exactly the way you want it to doesn't mean it is broken or "doomed". You can go back to X if you don't like the culture here.
This is how Alan shows his hostility to trans people.
Would he be as contemptuous if it were pretty much the entire Jewish community or black community or women saying “this guy is toxic and here are the receipts”?
Either you're very stupid, or very bigoted yourself, though I guess it could be a combo of the two. Either way, a key part of why Bluesky is *not* doomed is that transphobia isn't considered fine on here. If you don't like that, go back to Twitter where it's considered totally fine.
Crowing about his block count like counting coup and implying that the moderation label is on an economist article and not his account generally seems more like a troll than a journalist.
“Contentious issue” lmao. Which side is being contentious, Alan? The side that wants to live their lives in peace and receive the evidence-based medical care that is widely accepted? Or the side that has spent years spreading misinformation and fear?
Have you read his stuff?
They haven't banned him. They've just labeled his account according to the complaints they received.
(It's not about the Economist, FYI, it's about him.)
I'm not sure if I would identify every single post, because some might be about, say, the quality of the fresh orange juice at the local cafe. But on the whole, he's definitely someone to be careful of.
There's a laundry list of responses that could be offered to this, plenty of bullet point lists out there-- but, if I'm being honest, if you simply read his posts from the perspective of a trans person who likes having medical care it's very clear that he is opposed to that.
Ok, so for starters you disagree that his account has posts that can be considered intolerant. Keep going, if that’s just the start, what else is wrong with putting a screen banner on posts from an account deemed intolerant?
Singal is a fraud going back to his original article defending gay conversion. He went around asking trans activists about Kenneth Zucker, everyone thoroughly eviscerated Zucker, presenting what Zucker claims and then debunking it. Jesse published the article claiming none of those debunkings exist.
Hahaha. No, he deserves it. He’s transphobe as all hell, that’s intolerant. He wasn’t banned, he can still post. You and others can still read his schlop. It’s for you to make the choice.
This isn’t twitter folks, get over it
he's a lib leaning writer published in all the major lib-thinker outlets. whatever people dislike about him, he's clearly not a dangerous iconoclast that should be censored. he just intellectually diverges from liberal hegemony on a hot button topic.
The finer points of this belief are usually laid out only in bits and pieces. Jesse Singal, in a newsletter post defending the Times story about the perils of undisclosed social transition at school, was more direct than the Times itself dared to be...
The "undisclosed SOCIAL transition" was turned into undisclosed MEDICAL transition by the fascist GOP to sell to the idiot ignorant millions to get Trump elected.
Jesse Singal is one of the conscience-free grifters who helped make that happen.
How exactly is he intellectually diverging from the opinions of the New York Times and the US Supreme Court as well as about 280 million in GOP presidential election ad spending as well as the opinion of the GOP in general?
Being an anti-trans extremist and peddling medical disinformation and conspiracy theories is not “moderate”. Please stop trying to shift the Overton window.
And yes, this is an echo chamber. No nazis allowed.
You simply can't have algorithms making these calls. A two minute read by an actual person would reveal the article is straight reporting without any anti-trans bias. If these tech companies can't afford the staff to moderate their content, they should get out of the moderating business.
It’s accurate though. There was a coordinated campaign by a group of anti-trans activists to harass that poor woman.
Frankly, the fact that Singal is still on this app and hasn’t been permanently banned is the *actual* very bad sign for the future of this app’s approach to content moderation
He’s a journalist who reported on a lawsuit in one of the oldest and most respected magazines in the world. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it “harassment.”
He's a rightwing grifter, a member of the "just asking questions" gang who helped demonize trans healthcare, which was then weaponized by the GOP to get Trump elected.
Getting paid for lying isn’t journalism. And he was directly involved in the harassment campaign. He published disinformation which was then used by anti-trans extremists like Elon Musk and JK Rowling to go after her.
You didn't answer the question. I read Jesse's article in The Economist and it was moderately worded, nuanced and made me aware of many facts that I was previously unaware of.
To be fair, they’ve acknowledged this and explained that it’s a temporary measure while they are staffing up moderators to deal with the massive growth in users.
I mean who would have thought a transphobic journalist crafting bias narratives from insider information provided by a transphobic legal organization that intentionally fabricated a lawsuit against a prominent doctor in trans healthcare as a form of lawfare could be considered intolerant?
better questions: why do you ask? trying to suggest vast majority of trans don't report improved quality of life/mental health with transition? you suggest that shouldn't matter? that instead YOU should have more power over trans access to ONLY treatment known to help than they do? what's your goal?
Hey Alan common misunderstanding! The post isn't labelled that, his entire account is, what with his years long history of fabricating hate campaigns trying to kill trans people. I'm sure you had no idea or you wouldn't so publicly jump to this little worm's defense!
If you don’t like your moderation settings, THAT IS ON YOU. How Bluesky is moderated depends on your own settings and what moderation you subscribe to. Don’t make these stupid arguements about content moderation without doing the very basics of understanding how it works.
Not only is Singal intolerant as a reflex, hence his posts being labelled, that post is also intolerant.
If you cannot see the intolerance of attacking a group of people based on a shared characteristic, I suggest that you are also intolerant.
I bet Threads is pretty milquetoast but it's also tied to my Instagram and I have friends in both extremes that I don't want to end up talking politics with every time I see them. The only solution is to accept that I'm apparently a communist on Twitter and a fascist on Blusk
You can unsubscribe from content moderation (I don’t subscribe and don’t see that label except in your screenshot)…distinct issue from what to make of particular labeling choices, obvi
Pushes to ban trans healthcare using already debunked science for one. Now, he’s a weasel bitch about it and does the “just asking questions” model of cowardice. Same think Fuentes did.
Tolerance is part of the social contract, not the moral code.
It's not intolerant to keep people out who won't stick to the social contract, it's maintaining a community.
Jesse's conduct shows he's not interested in being part of the social contract, being excluded is a consequence.
Comments
Im not saying Graham Hancock of "everything is aliens" fame doesn't get to have a following either, but they don't get to masquerade as legitimate when the consensus is otherwise.
https://buff.ly/41mow4E
Heres more.
https://buff.ly/41mow4E
We should judge organisations, like people, by their actions.
The label is accurate. Transphobia is intolerance.
Anyone can label someone and there is no way to remove it.
To make clear: it seems patently ridiculous to me.
B) everything on the account is labeled intolerant if the account itself is labeled intolerant. This has been how it's always worked. Don't poop your pampers.
To wit, if Jessie Singal is the price for stopping this BlueSky becoming new-Twitter, we’ll have gotten a very good bargain indeed.
At the risk of sounding giddy I am going to applaud Bluesky for this approach
And so delicious 😋
Advanced
Either way, nobody's interested in your views on moderation.
This, however, is NOT THAT platform.
Apparently anyone to the right of Che Guevara is a Nazi or something
Is that people on B.Sky blocking him as well?
https://glaad.org/gap/jesse-singal/
Which was of course then weaponized by the GOP to get Trump elected.
https://popula.com/2023/01/29/the-worst-thing-we-read-this-week-why-is-the-new-york-times-so-obsessed-with-trans-kids/
It's a defensive posture from a few radicals inside the BS moderation team.
With the influx of liberals and centrists coming from X, there's going to be a lot of pressure on them to abandon their dogmatic anti-free speech approach.
BS will be a much better place in 2-3 months.
Probably one overzealous millenial on the BS moderation team who pulled the trigger and was then overruled by more senior sensible colleagues.
"oh no! a moderate voice in the discourse!"
Considering the circumstances, this is a very considerate threading of the needle by the platform. Banning such an account isn’t necessary, but placing it under such moderation can avoid a lot of piling on while showing care to those who don’t want to see it.
Would he be as contemptuous if it were pretty much the entire Jewish community or black community or women saying “this guy is toxic and here are the receipts”?
https://www.thefp.com/p/overheard-at-the-free-presss-election
But yes, this is a ridiculously narrow-minded platform
They haven't banned him. They've just labeled his account according to the complaints they received.
(It's not about the Economist, FYI, it's about him.)
This isn’t twitter folks, get over it
he's a lib leaning writer published in all the major lib-thinker outlets. whatever people dislike about him, he's clearly not a dangerous iconoclast that should be censored. he just intellectually diverges from liberal hegemony on a hot button topic.
https://glaad.org/gap/jesse-singal/
The finer points of this belief are usually laid out only in bits and pieces. Jesse Singal, in a newsletter post defending the Times story about the perils of undisclosed social transition at school, was more direct than the Times itself dared to be...
Jesse Singal is one of the conscience-free grifters who helped make that happen.
They just won the trifecta
Who exactly has hegemony here?
And yes, this is an echo chamber. No nazis allowed.
https://www.advocate.com/media/2021/7/29/respected-news-magazine-economist-publishes-anti-trans-screed
Frankly, the fact that Singal is still on this app and hasn’t been permanently banned is the *actual* very bad sign for the future of this app’s approach to content moderation
https://popula.com/2023/01/29/the-worst-thing-we-read-this-week-why-is-the-new-york-times-so-obsessed-with-trans-kids/
Anyway, I’m cool with intolerance of intolerance, so if they want to keep it up, then fine.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/new-research-reveals-how-the-nazis-targeted-transgender-people-180982931/
Everything he posted got the intolerance label for a bit, BECAUSE HE IS INTOLERANT.
Dude has been talking about running a brigade on people here, and is known for harassing others.
If you cannot see the intolerance of attacking a group of people based on a shared characteristic, I suggest that you are also intolerant.
Glad I mainly play over at Twitter rather than this hellsite.
It's not intolerant to keep people out who won't stick to the social contract, it's maintaining a community.
Jesse's conduct shows he's not interested in being part of the social contract, being excluded is a consequence.