What topics cause you the most problems?

The kind of topics that were popular in Germany circa 1939.

Case in point. "Everyone to the right of Marx is a Nazi" seems to be the rallying cry of their moderation strategy and user base.

Which is fine -- build what you want to be a part of -- but don't pretend it's the neutral position.

What about the moderation strategy indicates that?

Try participating in discussions with a politically disapproved position and see how fast you're shadow-banned.

And no, I'm not talking about "1939 Germany" views.

Did that happen to you, or to anybody you can point to?

Yes. I realize I’m speaking with a Bluesky employee, and to be clear, you’re not really the audience to which I’m appealing. I don’t expect anyone working at the platform to disagree with the ideological framework under which it operates -- or even to recognize it -- and that’s fine. But let’s not pretend it’s neutral or balanced.

I think we're just, once again, speed-running the "which opinions, mfer" goose meme.

I wanted to play devil's advocate here, but unfortunately did find an example of a "politically disapproved position" in frumple's post history:

"The deportations will continue regardless of the tantrums of the hysterical and mentally ill."

Which ironically is similar to some "1939 Germany" views.

Are you claiming that enforcing existing 2026 U.S. immigration law -- developed through decades of bipartisan agreement and consistent with policies in other liberal democracies -- is in any way comparable to 1939 Germany and their systematic murder of millions?

That comparison is precisely the problem: it distorts history, inflates moral claims, and shuts down serious discussion.

This is also largely the standard level of rhetoric on Bluesky, which is fine -- but manufactured consensus on a heavily moderated platform is not the same thing as factual or moral authority.

Even if the current state of immigration policy was forged in a bipartisan agreement(it wasn't), it would be inhumane and I would condemn it.

Fortunately the Republicans, specifically Tom Homan and Stephen Miller, can be shown to have a record of dehumanizing people to the point of cruelty.

As far as anyone could tell they were behind the effort to separate children from their families, and the decision to intentionally destroy records, and prevent the recording of data, which ultimately left over a thousand children orphaned to this very day.

I know someone in CBP who volunteered to try help sort that situation out, ready to get on a plane, paying out of pocket, and they were told to stand down by leadership.

The republican-led executive branch wanted to inflict pain despite the law, and despite "policy".

And now those same people (Homan and Miller) are behind the door-to-door raids, asking people for their papers, building detention centers(even though we're supposed to be sending them back home...), and targeting political enemies.

Obama managed to deport 3 million people without this excess use of cruelty, civil rights violations, manpower, or money.

This is something else.

This level of hatred towards the other is the type of seed that may or may not grow into a holocaust. It's understandable if some people want to kill it before it sprouts by drawing obvious parallels.

This is a category error. Immigration enforcement -- even when abusive or unlawful, which is not a concession I make -- is not genocide. Invoking 1939 Germany collapses distinctions that matter.

Holocaust analogies based on unsupported anecdote and asserted intent aren’t analysis; they’re unfalsifiable rhetorical escalations designed to end debate. If every disliked policy is treated as a "seed" of genocide, as is now common, the term loses meaning and becomes an empty rhetorical weapon. Argue specific actions with evidence and standards, or don’t -- but stop inflating unfalsifiable moral claims to the point where serious critique is impossible.

> Even if the current state of immigration policy was forged in a bipartisan agreement(it wasn't), it would be inhumane and I would condemn it.

We haven’t passed a comprehensive immigration law since 1986, and the enforcement framework in use today arises from bipartisan legislation passed in 1986, major subsequent revisions in 1996, and layers of later executive discretion exercised by administrations of both parties. We had four years of functionally non-existent enforcement, and while I cannot ascribe motive, the natural outcome was to make later enforcement incredibly difficult -- a consequence that is now plainly visible.

If you think those laws are unjust, argue that -- but don’t pretend this is some novel or uniquely partisan creation.

> but don’t pretend this is some novel or uniquely partisan creation.

There is no need to pretend. The specific excesses I mentioned are Republican actions. The Democrat failures do not excuse the illegal and immoral Republican cruelty.

You are assuming priors that you have not argued, much less proven.

What do you mean by "Democrat failures"? The Democratic party doesn't believe Biden's immigration policy was a failure, and in fact the official party position seems to be that Biden didn't open the border enough. Democrat politicians have committed to more of the same, and dozens of cities and states controlled by progressives have put sanctuary policies in place that almost completely forbid immigration control of any kind.

Help me out here. Its not clear to me what the Left considers a failure.

I don't think the Obama comparison is very useful. Trump faces a vastly more difficult problem than Obama did. For most of his presidency, Obama simply continued the Operation Streamline era policies that he inherited from Bush. He didn't have to clean up after a previous administration that had completely lost control of the border, allowing somewhere between ten and forty million immigrants through. And Obama didn't have to contend with dozens of states and cities declaring themselves sanctuaries, completely off limits to meaningful immigration enforcement, even of criminal migrants.

My own state promptly made it illegal for local law enforcement to cooperate with border patrol or immigration enforcement agents in any circumstance.

So now, if we want our country to have meaningful borders, immigration enforcement has to be done the hard way, and it shouldn't be surprising that Kristi Noem's clown show is showing signs of clusterfuckery. It's actually surprising that things have gone as well as they have.

> He didn't have to clean up after a previous administration

every dem president has to clean up after a republican president

That’s a slogan, not an argument. The point being made -- and made well, deserving of consideration -- was about institutional conditions (sanctuary laws, state non-cooperation, scale of inflows) that simply didn’t exist during Obama’s early years, regardless of party.

When is comes to immigration in particular, that simply isn't true. As I alluded to in my comment, Obama inherited Bush's Operation Streamline immigration regime, which was running like a Swiss watch in comparison to the mess we have now. Over the course of his two terms, Obama squandered his inheritance as the progressives encroached. By election season in 2015, the progressive model was being embraced by mainstream Democrats, and was pretty plainly admitting to open-borders aspirations. In my opinion, this more than anything handed Trump his first election victory. If there was one thing that could convince the normies that we need a border wall-- whether literal or symbolic-- it was the sudden realization that the Left was serious about open borders and unlimited immigration.

And of course, not to be outdone by Obama, Joe Biden managed to lose control of the border in a manner that has no precedent in American history, once again handing Trump an easy victory. It's like they wanted to lose another election.

To grasp how radically the Democrat party has moved left on immigration, recall that Obama and Hillary Clinton ran against each other on strict immigration enforcement. Here's my favorite Hillary quote from a 2008 campaign speech:

> "If they’ve committed a crime, deport them, no questions asked. They’re gone. If they’re working and law-abiding, we should say here are the conditions for you staying: You have to pay a stiff fine because you came here illegally, you have to pay back taxes, you have to try to learn English, and you have to wait in line."

Your argument is ultimately that it’s ok to ignore the constitution, civil rights, and human decency because it’s time to do things “the hard way”.

That’s not what was argued. “The hard way” refers to institutional difficulty, not illegality — specifically, enforcing federal law in the face of state non-compliance and sanctuary policies.

Difficulty does not equal unconstitutionality.

If you think the measures required violate specific constitutional provisions or civil-rights protections, name them and explain how. Otherwise this is a moral reframe that clumsily sidesteps concrete claims about enforcement feasibility and changed conditions.

1939 Germany wanted to do the invading, not combat it.

Are you trying to imply that Germany didn't deport anybody in 1939?

Really? Anecdotal as well, but I see tonnes of liberals and similar free market oriented people all over that website... I wonder if whether our preferences are giving us different impressions of the user base?

The primary differentiator for me is that bsky does not have a central algorithm, you only see content from people you follow or explicitly go looking for. Yes the "top today" overall feed is very left biased, but the default is an empty feed that you have to populate yourself.

You can't complain about content on bluesky because unlike every other platform you must choose which feeds you use.

This accusation would have a little more zing, if the person who owns the other place wasn't posting about white replacement almost every day.

Pretty shitty that ones choice of social media is so politicized but if you must pick a side... I will pick the non-nazi side, thank you very much!

Yeah, not sure why I'd spend a minute of my time on a social media site where the owner's boosted comments literally make me feel physically ill.

Experiencing physical revulsion at anodyne posts and recasting social media choice as a moral emergency is not characteristic of a well-adjusted mental state. That kind of reaction says more about the norms of a subculture than about Musk or the platform.

Personally endorsed by Musk: "If white men become a minority, we will be slaughtered. Remember, if non-Whites openly hate White men while White men hold a collective majority, then they will be 1000x times [sic] more hostile and cruel when they are a majority over whites. White solidarity is the only way to survive." https://religiondispatches.org/2026/01/09/musk-endorsed-whit...

And this is "anodyne" to you? Personally, I want absolutely nothing to do with these cretins. Being in the same virtual space with them makes me feel dirty, let alone using a platform actually owned by one of them. I wouldn't go to Stormfront to discuss gaming news, either.

Musk’s “endorsed” statement is weak because it overgeneralizes, treats racial categories as coherent agents, and pessimistically assumes institutional failure. But none of that makes it unspeakable or uniquely dangerous.

What’s notable is what the statement doesn’t contain: no call to violence or illegal action, no dehumanization, no demand for exclusion, and no rejection of individual rights or constitutional order.

Those absences matter, because they’re the thresholds that normally justify treating speech as exceptional rather than refutable. Treating a contestable prediction as a moral emergency is exactly the reaction I was pointing at.

At that point the objection becomes about perceived ideological contamination.

Equivalent — and equivalently weak — arguments are accepted prima facie from others when they’re framed in the language of vulnerability and historical grievance. “White supremacy” has become a catch-all classifier that short-circuits analysis asymmetrically, while similar reasoning elsewhere passes without scrutiny.

"Speaking over a video link, the tech billionaire criticised 'uncontrolled migration', later adding: 'Whether you choose violence or not, violence is coming to you. You either fight back or you die.'" https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0m4rz0pvmno.amp

"Elon Musk says 'civil war is inevitable' as UK rocked by far-right riots." https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/06/tech/elon-musk-civil-war-uk-r...

"Elon Musk calls for dissolution of parliament at far-right rally in London" https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/13/elon-musk...

"Musk reposted meme saying people who benefit from federal programs are the 'Parasite Class'" https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-musk-reposted-meme-120...

Calls to violence and illegal action, dehumanization, demands for exclusion, rejection of individual rights and constitutional order -- oh yes. All of the above. These are his Twitter-brain-rotted bread and butter.

Also, did I say we should arrest Elon Musk for hate speech? I said that inflammatory white supremacist rhetoric viscerally disgusts me, as does using a social platform owned by a white supremacist, and I want none of my attention or money going to any of his warped enterprises. This is not exactly rocket science and does not require a philosophical dissection.

(I assume you generated your response with an LLM so not sure why I even bother.)

I’m not disputing that Musk says things you find objectionable. I’m pointing out that his statement -- and these statements -- do not cross the thresholds you’re claiming they do. Yours is a claim of moral contamination, not an argument. Thresholds don’t matter, refutation doesn’t matter, and context doesn’t matter.

Nothing you’ve quoted here meets the content thresholds you've invoked: no call to violence or illegal action, no dehumanization, no demand for exclusion, no rejection of individual rights or constitutional order.

This is not, by any logically justifiable standard, "white supremacy".

> (I assume you generated your response with an LLM so not sure why I even bother.)

No, but you would benefit from asking an LLM to analyze your responses for logical entailment before posting them.

still hard to believe that this was supposed to be a decentralized social media app, and now it's like one giant subreddit