Dr MJ Poppe

The link three comments back.

It was in the ACLU article you linked.

No. But, keeping a status quo of how social platforms handles things isn't moving in a direction that's better either.

The current designs are geared towards more neurotypical users. And offer little in the way for allowance of greater management of safe spaces.

That commonly have medical teams that come through bridge houses. Insisting that everyone gets checked out by them. Even registering them without consent to a mostly unknown clinic location...

That bill already describes something that has been in place and active for years.

The only thing questionable in it was the mention of institutionalized care.

Idk, about where you live at. But, that already happens. It's been a thing that people have been working at getting away from going back to the Willowbrook exposé.

Rehab, rapid rehousing programs...

Ending Crime and Disorder on America's Streets By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1.  Purpose and

And the ACLU author seemed to have ignored the body of text.

www.whitehouse.gov/presidential...

Referring to person's posing harm towards others or cannot self care.
The author's premise is exactly a non sequitur... Assuming that the horrible possible must follow that law...

There are protections. Not sure what state law it's listed under over there. But, usually references the laws by the Division of Developmental Disabilities. Which is a federal law that long preexisted Cheeto.

Pretty sure the current stance didn't consider legal implications, only how it affects 💰

If Rahaeli were to step away from being as contrarian as he's been. He can also confirm such.

The concept that the government will target anyone is a non sequitur. It doesn't automatically follow. Moreover, that's based on an assumption that they have access to broadly search out posts. Which, again is Bluesky's responsibility on what and how their content may be accessed.

Of course. There are other laws and rights that all pertain to the topic. Supplying need for accomodation and/or modifications are also governed by other laws. Which is also behind why I stated that the Mississippi bill is being misconstrued.

Disabilities was an expansion, as an example of my original point of their stance being both misguided (probably should have better phrased that as short sighted) and an opportunity they can otherwise use to build the platform and company.

No. I'm saying it's an opportunity for Bluesky to one-up what Mississippi requires. Most tech companies become very specific with the terms for both users, and outside inquiry. Also, an opportunity to build their reputation and investment portfolio by taking the right approach.

How else are they supposed to maintain such a policy?

But, there's a definite need for such a design.

Hopefully it won't be another 50+ years for the next big change.

If you're wondering why 50 years. Google Willowbrook School.

There's much worse than that the farther back you look.

Not unlike how children have been treated in the past.

That falls under all such law that impacts that. No. I don't believe they should. But, I do stand on that some social media platform. At some point should strongly consider being the pioneer on this. Maybe not Bluesky, or even the other one Rahaeli wanted to red herring so badly...

Bluesky's present stance will be, as a comorbity. A missed opportunity for them. To consider actually doing something different. More inclusive. Something that hasn't been done before.

They can, by design and careful consideration make that.

This stance however, is mere political positioning

Every person who is on a developmental disability spectrum is going to have individual needs and considerations. There honestly isn't any one size fits all. Which, were this topic given more consideration, and thought of in much broader scope...

No. There should be greater control over creating such safe space. Presently, social platforms lack such options. Example, nonverbal adult likes to watch videos during screentime. But, guardian/caregiver doesn't have adequate ability to filter out content that produces triggers

Caregivers and guardians to set up such filters. Presently, the plethora of platforms around don't offer much in the way of features as such... As I've said many times on this. It's an area of opportunity. Such, that it's obvious by now Bluesky didn't really think this over...

That question indicates you haven't seen an ID card of such a person. Typically some disability information is provided on the card. Such data should be an indication of a potential need for additional considerations. Such as modifications to policies and accommodating ability for...

So full of logical fallacies. Yet no intelligence to address the original comment you've chosen to give "attention" to.

Which has nothing to do with a social media platform.

Or the original topic.

As for the people who are still going crazy as I type this.

I'm done redirecting the conversation back to topic.

It's obvious no one on there can hold a conjecture exchange based on the topic without dancing around.

It speaks VOLUMES about the platform itself.

So, unless Bluesky somehow changes my mind.

This platform is merely "more of the same".

Which, of course will be seen by many.

(The people missed that I'm not really all that active on here. Hence, why I don't have "followers")

It is blatantly clear that the flock of people who couldn't stay on topic and directly address the original point I made... Don't care about inclusion.

Which, based on the comments from some... Appear to represent the Bluesky platform.

Sadly, no person who identified as Bluesky staff stepped up.

Unfortunately, this poorly represents the many who bought in on yet another lie...

The people, whom claim to want a better outcome. For society to become something better.

Whether talking about children, or the more vulnerable adults with severe developmental disabilities...

And, thanks to the responses from so many on the political theatrical bandwagon.

Back to my first post on this platform. This is yet, another regurgitated toxic soup social platform.

Basically X 2.0... Carefully branded as the anti-truth social.

Yet, absolutely no different or better

Is a huge area of opportunity for the platform.

On the short end of it. It is a contradictory stance compared to the "better platform" stance months ago.

I think Bluesky is being very short sighted in this approach, and should look at the biggest picture. Then plan from there.

It's a marginalization. If you have say a person with level 3 ASD. Whom are often nonverbal, but go on social media platforms with no adequate filters or controls. Then you aren't really offering inclusion.

I expanded on my original premise with such, as this original topic...

Then perhaps, Rahaeli or any of you... Whom I didn't address to begin with... Should start at the very beginning, with logical conjecture of why B$ refuses.

And do try to leave out the non sequitur political boogeyman and other logical fallacies... Like your onus probandi shifting.

Isn't a misdirection. It's an expansion on the earlier comment I made about why Bluesky isn't working at creation of safe spaces.

Pretty much with their "no ads" changing over to "we have ads now"

Easily explains why.