Post

>On Mastodon, any reasonable server would just ban the account Except US-based admins and moderators who absolutely do not want that exposure, or need to travel to the US. The increasingly anti-US rhetoric from the ActivityPub leadership community is troubling for those who are not as insulated.

And for people saying "just ban them" they are missing a key point: Bans are public, you're basically handing the account free "dissenter info" to track you. Besides, it's STILL completely missing the point. They shouldn't be here at all.

Sorry, I should have said "BLOCK" for the user action, not "ban" that was a bit confusing sorry but as I can't edit my post, this will have to do.

They (the current admin) are look for any reason to wreck Bluesky. Don't give them the ammo I'd prefer Bluesky the company to remain neutral and not become editorial. They gave us great tools to craft a personal experience. If you want this experiment to succeed, there will be people you don't like

There are two issues first: - First, Bluesky is not the only one that could make the account, and it's almost trivially easy (for a system administrator) to create a system to hold users. - Second, it is better that they are verified. This means we don't have to ponder whether that account is them.

Verification is not, and has never been, a perk for the account. It is a service for users to know that the person they're looking at is really them and not an impersonator.

And about blocking – that information always has to reside somewhere AND it has to be somewhat public. If the blocked person knows your account exists and your account blocks them, as soon as they try to connect, they'll know if they block you or not. And because different providers (decentr.)…

Dude, if you want Mastodon, go to Mastodon. Bluesky isn't trying to be the same thing.

Are you suggesting mastodon.social would ban such US government accounts if they tried making accounts on that instance? I think it's just that the Mastodon user count is so low they haven't bothered to troll over there yet.

Give it a year or two - BSKY's only 2y old, & launched centrallu to create critical mass which the fediverse has not achieved in 10. I agree we need to see more decentralisation as the ATmosphere evolves, to lighten BSKYSocial's weight, rendering it less vulnerable. So, build more, snipe less?

I think this kind of thing should have been a concern from day one because it is hard to fix the imbalance later and I don't really see it being a priority even now. Every day Bsky hoards more and more users without pointing to any alternatives for account hosting.

(notice the deliberate spelling error so I could complain about the lack of an edit button too)

Snipe less? You just threw shade at the fediverse! My point is that if it walks a like a duck and sounds like a duck, it's a duck. I'm all for Bluesky (and the fediverse!) to grow: we aren't enemies. I'm just saying banning is politically impossible for Bsky to do BECAUSE it's monolithic *today*