Can you give an example? It sounds like you have something specific in mind.

Things like this? https://lunduke.locals.com/post/6505039/bluesky-bans-lunduke...

And this: https://x.com/clownworld_/status/1858194893249917377?s=46

And this: https://x.com/immeme0/status/1872482191869132932?s=46

They seems REALLY ban happy over there.

You see it as a problem, i see it as a benefit, Main reason i dislike twitter/X is the amount of pointless grift that goes around, some for monetary reasons, Either behave like a human or leave, "I posted some dog whistle and got banned for it" is actually a great ad for Bluesky.

I've never been able to find it again, but there was a really interesting discussion on [ATP](https://atp.fm/) a long while back where John Siracusa was floating the idea of a 'less free' social network and I've really, really wanted one ever since. Honestly, Hacker News is pretty close to that in the sense that low-value content is unceremoniously removed, which must contribute to the overall better quality here.

The problem I see today, is that we, humans, can't find a balance in that for some reason. Less free basically translates to the moderated, and it is universally seen as a good mechanism in general. But today it is often either free for all lack of moderation, or a full scale ban frenzy, with zero warnings, and zero timed bans, always permanent ones. Sometimes due to the platform architecture permabans even prevent from reading posts. And out of the few places with warning systems, several have no control over report abuse. There are almost no middle ground popular platforms left.

That first one looks like a first-person account, so I'm guessing is probably heavily biased; I couldn't watch the full video without creating an account, which I'm not prepared to do right now.

The second is clearly an account attempting to get banned. Regardless of what you post, if you're actively trying to get banned, I don't care that much when you do.

The third is probably the most concerning, although he doesn't provide any specific evidence about what he actually posted, so must be taken with a grain of salt.

In general, I'm really against services banning you without clear reason or ability to challenge. See also gmail, X, amazon, etc. etc. In terms of "free speech" vs. "censorship", I'd like a healthy mix for my social media service of choice (whether that ends up being Bluesky or something else). I don't want people to be excluded simply for expressing an opinion. I do want people excluded if they are harassing others—or worse, obviously.

Nothing concrete in any of those links, but they all smack of bad faith (and the middle one didn’t even depict a ban).

That said, if people whose entire personality is being anti-trans perceive Bluesky as ban-happy and aren’t interested in it, I see that as a win.

> they all smack of bad faith

> That said, if people whose entire personality is being anti-trans

Are you talking about protecting women’s rights? That’s pro something, not anti something, right?

So speaking of bad faith… The only one I see acting in bad faith here is you?

It's both. To be pro-women is to be anti-trans, and vice versa. The two stances are fundamentally incompatible.

No, I’m not talking about protecting women’s rights. I hope if you were to imagine (in good faith!) a person “whose entire personality is protecting women’s rights” and a person “whose entire personality is being anti-trans” you’d come up with different images.

Btw, you’re firmly doing the bad faith thing now, and were from the very start when you danced around the truth with language like “commonly held views and scientific facts”.

They banned Laura Looner for just showing up.

I don't know how reliable a source daily dot is, but [their report](https://www.dailydot.com/debug/bluesky-ban-laura-loomer-catt...) says that is untrue.

That Dailydot article is from November 14 2024 and says those were fake accounts.

But apparently she really did create an account, yesterday, and says to have been immediately banned, without posting anything: https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1873542021715243076

I see. Having looked into this some more, I honestly think she's an outlier. I'm not familiar with her work, but she seems to make money by being banned from places, using the "most banned woman" label as a badge of honour. Still, would be interesting to get Bluesky's take on this, and some more unbiased detail from somewhere.

Even worse, they don't ban the users sending death threats and other threats of extreme violence - as Jesse Singal discusses in this article:

https://www.thefp.com/p/jesse-singal-bluesky-has-a-death-thr...