The central complaint doesn't seem to be distaste, but rather the fact that he is uniquely privileged over other users, despite violating Bluesky's terms of service.[0]

[0]: https://www.change.org/p/bluesky-must-enforce-its-community-...

▲

easterncalculus 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah here's the problem with this argument:

1. People want him banned for any and no reason, so this is a post-hoc justification. The same people (let's be real, likely including you) wanted Singal banned the second he made his account.

2. This change.org petition, despite proving how many uninformed people will blindly click agree on a petition, proves nothing about how Singal broke literally any rule anywhere, in law or on Bluesky.

▲

Levitz 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The central complaint isn't "distaste" because you can't call for someone to be banned because of a "distaste".

"Jesse Singal has distributed private medical information on Bluesky without the consent of the patient" translates to publishing a quote from a patient included in a therapist's letter of support for hormones.

The problem in this situation is that the complaint itself as well as the whole drama surrounding the person is an exercise of harassment towards Singal. In this context, I don't think that saying "waffles" is out of order. I'm not sure of what else can be done about crybullying, since by its very nature innocent bystanders would be surely affected if action was taken against those complaining.

▲

mossTechnician 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Distributing private medical information without consent is a violation of Bluesky's terms.

And to me, that sounds like a much more concrete example of someone being a bully.

▲

Levitz an hour ago | parent | next [-]

>“Don’t use Bluesky Social to break the law or cause harm to others,”

Is this, quoted in the change.org, the relevant line?

The law was not broken, it is also fairly evident that the intention was not to "cause harm to others", nor has any harm has seemingly come upon the patient for this (it requires a huge stretch of imagination to think of a case in which it could)

▲

zdragnar 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Is it private if it is in a public affidavit?

▲

mossTechnician 2 hours ago | parent [-]

In my opinion, inappropriately leaked information should probably still be considered private, even if it was made publicly accessible. But even if not, Singal says the same leaker directly contacted him with a new leak, which he also published.

▲

naasking an hour ago | parent [-]

> In my opinion, inappropriately leaked information should probably be considered private.

How is that relevant to BSky's terms of service? The information was public and did not identify the person.

> But even if not, Singal says the same leaker directly contacted him with a new leak, which he also published.

I notice that you didn't say whether this new leak was private information, or whether it was also already public knowledge, or whether it in any way identified a person.

	▲	mossTechnician an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> I notice that you didn't say whether this new leak was private information The new leak was, according to journalist Jesse Singal himself, absolutely private information.

▲

tekla 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why do people keep lying about this?

He pulled a quote from a publically available affidavit.

There was no identifying information whatsoever either.

▲

parl_match 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]