Jay Biscuits
LightNews LightNews
banner
jaybiscuits.bsky.social
Jay Biscuits
@jaybiscuits.bsky.social
27 followers 40 following 120 posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
jaybiscuits.bsky.social
Is that a real post Senator? It demonstrates how out of touch you are and just feeds into the ever larger growing box of evidence that indeed you are pro-grooming, pro-molestation, pro-rape.
May 2, 2025 at 9:33 PM
jaybiscuits.bsky.social
February 3, 2025 at 1:00 AM
jaybiscuits.bsky.social
what I see when I look at his logo
January 24, 2025 at 6:16 PM
jaybiscuits.bsky.social
I reported them for this post which is even worse
January 14, 2025 at 3:00 AM
jaybiscuits.bsky.social
Richard Feynman, Caltech Graduation Speech, 1974, The Cargo Cult speech!
January 12, 2025 at 6:29 PM
jaybiscuits.bsky.social
There are 42,000,000 adolescents in the US

youth.gov/youth-topics....
January 8, 2025 at 3:25 AM
jaybiscuits.bsky.social
seems like the solution is mostly there
January 3, 2025 at 5:44 PM
jaybiscuits.bsky.social
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Re...
January 3, 2025 at 5:34 AM
jaybiscuits.bsky.social
hey brainiac, guess where this appears...
seems like an article positively portraying the trans experience.
To make sense of this complex reality—and ensure the best outcome for all gender-exploring kids—parents need accurate, nuanced information about what gender dysphoria is and about the many blank spots in our current knowledge. They don’t always get it. For gender-dysphoric people, physical transition can be life enhancing, even lifesaving. While representative long-term data on the well-being of trans adults have yet to emerge, the evidence that does exist—as well as the sheer heft of personal accounts from trans people and from the clinicians who help them transition—is overwhelming. For many if not most unwaveringly gender-dysphoric people, hormones work. Surgery works. That’s reflected in studies that consistently show low regret rates for the least-reversible physical procedures to address gender dysphoria. One 2012 review of past studies, for example, found that sex-reassignment surgery “is an effective treatment for [gender dysphoria] and the only treatment that has been evaluated empirically with large clinical case series.” A study on “bottom surgery,” or surgery designed to construct a penis or vagina, found that from 1972 to 2015, “only 0.6 percent of transwomen and 0.3 percent of transmen who underwent [these procedures] were identified as experiencing regret.” Those of us who have never suffered from gender dysphoria can have a hard time appreciating what’s at stake. Rebecca Kling, an educator at the National Center for Transgender Equality, in Washington, D.C., told me that before she transitioned she felt as if she were constantly carrying around a backpack full of rocks. “That is going to make everything in my life harder, and in many cases is going to make things impossible,” she said. “Of course being able to remove that heavy burden has added comfort and stability in my sense of myself and my body.” Other trans people have offered similar descriptions of gender dysphoria—a weight, a buzzing, an unavoidable source of rumination and worry. Hormones a…
January 3, 2025 at 5:27 AM
jaybiscuits.bsky.social
these are the recommendations?
after boot's long build up to them?
they seem anticlimactic at best
January 2, 2025 at 5:29 PM
jaybiscuits.bsky.social
Sigh, I was blocked by justchullin in that thread (and have no idea why) so I cannot respond to Don directly, but his position seems unserious and no tenable
Don, I'm trying to understand your position You seem to be saying there's no value to any of the non-peer reviewed writing science journalists do On X and at reddit, I've said I do wish Jesse would partner with someone and get his papers reviewed and published, but that's not what you are saying at all Is that the position you hold with all science journalism? That a science journalist or any person unless they get their papers peer-reviewed and published cannot read and understand a paper and then write about that? Do you read news articles, or only articles in peer-reviewed journals? How? Why?
December 31, 2024 at 7:59 PM
jaybiscuits.bsky.social
"Will! Stop being a dumbass, say goodbye to your friends, wash your hands and come up for dinner!"
December 27, 2024 at 11:47 PM
jaybiscuits.bsky.social
How far you've traveled since Christmas Eve, Will.

I'm assuming you unwrapped the drone your mommy bought you and promptly flew it into a tree.
December 27, 2024 at 11:41 PM
jaybiscuits.bsky.social
Does ISIS make hangar homes? Do you have the name of one of their architects?
December 23, 2024 at 8:39 PM
jaybiscuits.bsky.social
If the past month of people doxing Jesse using their real names doesn't demonstrate the value of pseudonymity, ...

well I guess this will be unconvincing too.

"radical lawyer, antifa, 'ashamed American'" sees election doesn't go her way and so endorses call for violence
December 20, 2024 at 6:30 PM
jaybiscuits.bsky.social
@jessesingal.com

Hey, this guy's an ass, but his idea is stellar, allow people to use starter packs as blocklists!
December 19, 2024 at 1:25 AM
jaybiscuits.bsky.social
At the time, I replied to the moderator's comment with the message in the first image, and was banned and no reason given. And the mod deleted my message.

I replied to the ban to ask why with the message in the second image.

No reply of course.

Here's the prompt (try it): pastebin.com/v8cj80MR
December 18, 2024 at 11:30 PM
jaybiscuits.bsky.social
Bsky is opaque not open

Who wrote that "skeet" and who is blocking whom?

I think I've turned off a lot of content moderation here, but still wherever I go I see these blocks or other forms of moderation.

I've been here less than a week, I've posted half a dozen times, why is everything blocked?
December 18, 2024 at 7:28 AM
jaybiscuits.bsky.social
Yoel,

I read your lawfare paper, but wasn't thrilled. I hope you'll read this response, and I'd be happy to discuss it.

I'm new to BlueSky, but have a long experience with Twitter.

Thanks,

Jay

www.lawfaremedia.org/article/cont...
Yoel, I read your lawfare paper, but wasn't thrilled. I fear your proposal will enable social media platforms to change nothing while hiding behind this new public editor, creating an illusion of transparency while maintaining their current opaque practices. Real transparency isn't about explaining certain decisions that the editor feels forced to address - it's about a two way conversation between user and platform, one with accountability. What users need is a user bill of rights: where TOS and moderation guidelines are clearly stated (perhaps in a machine understandable manner), where users are told of content takedowns, suspensions and bans, where each moderation/punishment decision is provided to the user along with the problem content. Where there can be no shadow bans. Where appeals processes are open, proceed on a known timetable in a timely manner, and where when escalated do reach human oversight. Note: I did not say the appeals were necessarily fee free, but nor should they be prohibitive in cost. And all of this needs to be auditable by accredited researchers who might use big-data and machine learning techniques to investigate how a platform's moderation policies are actually running. If you want to make social media a better place for everyone, you want to let the social media companies free to enact their TOS and moderation guidelines as they see fit, but you also want to make sure the users know these will be applied in a well-understandable fashion to all violators. The current system is broken, and your proposed public editor will become just another bureaucrat. Want to actually improve content moderation? Start by giving users real power and meaningful recourse. Until then, this feels like a well-intentioned but ultimately ineffective approach.
December 17, 2024 at 10:23 PM