¡Buena suerte! Es un lenguaje muy bonito, espero que disfrutes tu aprendizaje.

Nice! It would be great to see some competition to Qualcomm on the SOC side, and TSMC on the manufacturing side.

No, absolutely not. Although it's a stretch that these moderation choices will destroy us, it's important to speak up if you disagree, as many people here are doing.

Holy autocorrect, rewrite the whole* conversation (!!), not the "white" conversation lmao

No worries, I gotchu lol thanks for having an amicable discussion with me. 🤝

That is a good point! I supposed we should ask the team if they define intolerant speech and hate speech equally.

I don't want to rewrite the white conversation, but there's a thread of a discussion I had with another replier of why "rest in piss" can be considered hate speech.

I don't believe Bluesky's team are malicious or believe Kirk's speech is in the same boat, as another replier put it, but I do believe they want to protect their platform. If they are actually doing that is a different conversation whatsoever.

I've seen plenty of critiques of Charlie Kirk here, but I do think Bluesky has a line that they do not want crossed on their platform. Whether we, as users, agree or not is personal.

My personal opinion about the phrase aside, the platform's opinion is the one that moderates it.

They are not in the same boat at all, and I don't know why you think I would label them as such.

I am, I repeat myself, trying to understand Bluesky's moderation choices.

Yes, of course. We know the intent of the words we use. I am sure most, if not all, of commenters do not mean to incite or glorify violence. The interpretation of those words _can be_ hateful, which is why I believe Bluesky is removing them, not because they are inherently hateful.

I'm not arguing Kirk didn't speak in hate speech, nor that he wasn't hateful. He was a highly despicable man, and his examples of hate speech are numerous, as you pointed out. I am trying to understand Bluesky's moderation choices.

Kirk was hateful, there's no doubt about that. "Rest in piss" isn't hateful in itself, sure, but can be given the context.

If Kirk had passed from disease or natural causes, it would be fine. But because he was assassinated, it can be argued that it glorifies violence, even if it's not the intent.

True, but we are held to Bluesky's standard in using this service, whether we agree or not.

The first point can be argued either way, I will admit.

The second point, what language organization does Reuters conform to? Because hate speech has been clearly defined in common dictionaries and by international organizations.

Legally speaking, in US Law, you are correct, however.

to allow hate speech to flourish. I don't think Bluesky wants that at all. They clearly want to differentiate themselves from Twitter and have seemed to learn from Twitter's mistakes (I hope).

I struggle to understand how much hateful speech Bluesky is willing to tolerate. "Rest in piss" is clearly hateful. Although it is relatively benign to Kirk's, and some conservative extremists, own hate speech, I don't think we need to lower ourselves to their standards. It takes one small misstep-

I disagree. For example, describing his discourse as "divisive" instead of "often-provocative" would be more accurate.

Describing his speech as "hate speech" would be more accurate as well, without an intent at an inflammatory description, as it's an objective description of Kirk's rhetoric.