So, if you’re online poisoned like me, you may have noticed that Bluesky CEO Jay Graber has been having sort of a slow motion, low-key public meltdown for the past several weeks. Most recently, in this interaction with a user.
[…]
Even with practical technical decentralization, the vast majority of Bluesky users are on, well, Bluesky. Bluesky was never really packaged as something that was relatively easy for someone to spin up on their own servers; the network has been historically extremely centralized, and only small minorities of users have broken off.AT Proto decentralization doesn’t exist as a practical reality, and if it ever does it won’t be for years. Most of the work driving effective decentralization is being done by third parties, who have limited guarantees about future compatibility with possible breaking changes on Bluesky’s end.
Bluesky inc isn’t really making ‘a protocol’, they’re making Bluesky, the monolithic (to within a rounding error) social network that they operate.
I do genuinely believe that the Bluesky team set off from the start to create a decentralized protocol, but unfortunately for them they ended up running a social network. And at this point, AT Proto has become essentially a sort of ideological vaporware; a way for Jay Graber et al to run a social media platform while claiming they don’t run a social media platform.
This is, of course, just another iteration of the Silicon Valley monoproduct: power without accountability. The tech industry elite are very much like Gilded Age railroad barons – buying up whole towns, breaking up strikes, imposing top-down economic policy on whole sectors – except all the while they claim that they are just technology enthusiasts playing with their little trains.
US americans are largely the same, be it trumpers or self styled liberals, they always have to be “better than” or “the best” of something. This leads to dangerous orthodoxies that don’t allow debate or discussion which furter leads to stances that are nothing but distilled anti-intellectualism. The trumpers call everything woke, the liberals call everything phobe. Meanwhile the overton window has moved so far to the right, the country elected a pedophile scam artist as president because they know him from TV and the rest of the world is left holding the bag.
There is a bunch of normalized transphobia in America. That certain views are shared by elected politicians doesn’t make them not transphobic.
“Trans allies aren’t even bothering to debate this white guy, they’re just calling him names” isn’t proof of anything more than the frustration of said allies. It’s essentially the same thing as “Trump derangement syndrome”.
If we want to argue that someone is or isn’t transphobic, it would be a better use of everyone’s time to focus on what they actually said and what justifications their critics give for applying that label.
IMHO, the US has bigger fish to fry than transphobia, it’s ridiculous it has so much air time in the anglosphere in the face of the much more relevant inequality and destruction of association rights. The neonazis set up the bait and the idiots gobble it up, hook line and sinker.
By “association rights” I infer that you mean the right of free association.
If so, can you be a little bit more specific as to whose “association rights”, specifically, are a more important issue than the right of trans folk to get healthcare, be free from discrimination, and be able to play sports without being harassed?
My inclination is that the most important targets to defend against facist oppression are the ones being targeted, which does suggest one plausible answer, but I really do want to know what you meant in your post.
Are you telling trans people that the unequal treatment they face isn’t relevant? It’s all part of the same pattern of restricting rights. It’s a bit like saying, “never mind all that about the Jews, let’s focus on the Nazis.”
I’m saying precisely the opposite, but nice testament to Godwin’s law. Your reply is a nice example of the “phobes” point I had previously mentioned.
Godwin himself pointed out that his law doesnt apply when discussing actual fascists.
I guess I’m Nazi-phobic, but can you point out any other sense in which your statement holds meaning?
Everyone who questions your orthodoxy is a nazi, got it. That type of reasoning has worked wonderfully for everyone and resulted in better government and standards of living for all trans people. Wonderful job you’ve done protecting trans people in your country, the results really show.
I’m not calling anyone of Nazi, I don’t have an orthodoxy. Your straw men are getting tired, give them a rest.
The transphobes are getting ready to take away my healthcare, I think I have to be very worried about that.
If I can’t get my medicine I will die.
One of the beauties of socialized healthcare is transphobes can’t take it away from anyone.
Please tell.me that you have better sources in the UK than I, and that their recent transphobic swing didn’t make trans care harder to get and keep.
And they use the threat of trans people getting government healthcare as a way to stop socialized medicine. They also use racism this way, and sexism, and homophobia, and xenophobia, and other reactionary ideologies. These things are directly connected, we can’t really ignore one to focus on the other.
Besides, we need to form a mass movement, and you can’t form a mass movement by telling minorities to shut up and wait their turn.
Also I might lose my healthcare in the next few months. It’s kind of fucking urgent?
Move to a civilised country and seek asylum because you’re persecuted in your country of origin.