Rycar

I didn't see where it landed.

Excellent.

He just kept talking in one incredibly unbroken sentence moving from topic to topic so that no one had the chance to interrupt it was really quite hypnotic

The only Cracked article pitch I ever made (and was too lazy to edit when I got feedback) was about movie twists you didn't know were twists because the trailers spoiled em.

My favorite is T2 where it's very deliberately filmed to suggest the T-1000 is a human like Kyle Reese until the mall.

Chat, is it good to make your brownshirts work for free when you're trying to make a Reich?

It's interesting to me, because it's one of the last real examples of a movie that legitimately surprised audiences, because the trailers were carefully edited to not spill the "it's a computer simulation" beans.

"What is the Matrix?" was fantastic movie marketing.

yikes

Didn't cohost already do this?

LOL, I said I'm open to them providing an explanation. Not some rando pulling one out of their ass.

I also find it personally amusing that it would quite literally be an argument that banning someone for hating waffles because they posted about liking pancakes is an honest mistake.

this is what's in my craw

bsky.app/profile/ryca...

This is a master class in benefit of the doubt.

IF the guy who has to communicate through an intermediary because he can't even post to Black Sky ISN'T LYING,

MAYBE THEY JUST HONESTLY fabricated a completely different message BY ACCIDENT

That's a helluva charitable assumption.

Now if you'd like to catch yourself up with the rest of the thread you'd see if that they already sent him a separate email on the offending skeet.

And on what planet would it be remotely okay to hand type evidence for a ban if that WERE the case.

I do and I am.

That still doesn't explain why BlueSky sent the offending poster a second claim with a less ambiguous threat he didn't write.

If that turns out to have an honest explanation, I'm all ears.

And BlueSky would still owe answers as to why:

- Link wasn't given a reason for his ban until there was a public pressure campaign

- How they managed to send him a second ban with a far less veiled threat he didn't write

Even if you 100% feel that Link's alt text constituted a veiled threat of violence, I don't see how the headline isn't,

BlueSky Admits They Could Ban Jesse Singal At Any Time If Only He Wasn't A Prominent White Man

Yeah, afaict (new to digging through these) they're both from the same account in different context.

So (grain of salt) at least the first emails alt text looks to be genuine.

Not sure how to reverse look up alt text so no idea about the second one.

ref

bsky.app/profile/mack...

Wait, when was Link's skeet?

This is the one I'd seen previously,but it's a different day.

pdsls.dev/at://did:plc...

The Portland frog backing down an army of jackboots

When your custom character appears in a cut scene

What conspiracy? They literally sent him a second email with different alt text ( the first was independently verified. still waiting on the second.)

It'll get sorted out eventually, benefits of an open system, but that's very odd to say the least.

Wonder if any folks that know how to scrape the AT logs can find if/where that second alt text shows up.

Did they grab it from someone else's skeet? Fabricate it? Retroactively update Link's?

bsky.app/profile/ryca...

bsky.app/profile/ryca...

Update: the benefit of the doubt I had evaporated once they sent link a second email with fabricated alt text.

I can see no interpretation other than they're trying to muddy the water with a less ambiguous (FALSE) threat. Fuck that.

bsky.app/profile/alia...

It was a QT of Jay's "Yet it's a behavior that persists across social media anyways, with negative consequences for civil discourse and society." post.

I can see the inference, sure. But particularly wild in the context of them arguing that Singal can't be banned for not explicitly violating rules.

The entire "WAFFLES" nonsense was in service of arguing that they *couldn't* ban Jesse Singal because he hadn't overtly violeted their policies.

By that standard, there is absolutely no bannable offense.

To say nothing of not giving the courtesy of an explanation.

The issue, afaict, is that it was in a QT of Jay saying,

"Yet it's a behavior that persists across social media anyways, with negative consequences for civil discourse and society."

I can see the inference made, and am sympathetic to it but for one small detail...

"Oh you wanna see THAT guy's posts? Better hire an ops team, lol"

That's one way to accelerate, I guess!

To say nothing of the entire community learning in real time that there is a type of ban that persists across instances unless you're willing to put more resources into your instance.

If that remains the way the protocol works, hard to not see that as a shakedown.