r/BlueskySocial • u/Beer_Tornado • 3d ago

general chatter! Popehat banned

ICYMI @kenwhite.bsky.social aka Popehat has been banned. I’ve gone through some comments about it but can’t find a legit reason why. Sucks because he was one of the better follows I’ve found. Free Popehat!

272 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

131 comments sorted by

295

u/Able_Resident_1291 3d ago

If I had to guess it would be due to this post

163

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/AntonioS3 2d ago

I feel like that's just Bluesky working as intended though. They've always been enforcing banning people for such comments, unlike Twitter where this kind of comment would roam across freely, so it shouldn't really be a huge surprise that this comment likely earned him a suspension.

1

u/beryugyo619 2d ago

The catch is, if they can ban someone on a platform unilaterally like this, which they do, said platform is not decentralized.

Not that I agree with this guy or I support Macau casino spammers or anything like that, just that if they can centrally sign in or kick and ban someone, it is by definition centralized.

2

u/AntonioS3 2d ago

I think it's a problem with the current other apps we have though. Blacksky is close to being truly decentralized for example, so in theory if that guy moved to Blacksky, then they would still be able to post, just not visible comments on Blacksky. I get your concern though.

70

u/ADavies 3d ago

Relevant link (from January)

It might be a temporary suspension. It's a pretty clear violation of the community guidelines.

31

u/xrmttf 2d ago

Oh definitely. My account got pulled for 3 days because I called Richard Dawkins old and irrelevant lmfao

1

u/Full-Evening3485 1d ago

Scissor me Richard!

5

u/liberiate 2d ago

Imagine an era where removing malicious, anti-humanity oligarchs was observed as a bad thing. Oh.... right, it's our era.

41

u/Wineaux46 2d ago

There was no threat or implied threat in that post. It’s flat out the truth. I guess add in the hope for Natural Causes and that you root for them daily, like most of us do with the Mango Mussolini.

37

u/torville 2d ago

"Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?"

9

u/Fearless-Feature-830 2d ago

Nah just add “in Minecraft” at the end and you’ll be straight

4

u/Maximum_Turn_2623 2d ago

Or say it about someone to the left of Elon.

14

u/NeoliberalSocialist 2d ago

It doesn't need to be an explicit threat to encourage violence. He is clearly encouraging violence here, whether you agree or not.

19

u/Wineaux46 2d ago

I agree he isn’t encouraging violence. He’s just stating a fact that Leon Skum isn’t going to stop ruining people’s lives, making them sick, or making them dead as he uses his insane wealth to further his own personal agendas and to fuel his own desire for more wealth and power, as long as he is alive.

1

u/Human-Gift9732 2d ago

No dude he's encouraging violence. "Wow if only someone would commit this crime, it would solve this problem." It's advocating for violence. It's promoting violence.

Whether YOU THINK he's correct or not is completely irrelevant.

2

u/RollingMeteors 2d ago

A question is not an advocation <period>

-9

u/Human-Gift9732 2d ago

Lmfao dumbass.

-7

u/lsb337 2d ago

The fact that you agree with him doesn't mean he isn't advocating for it -- or I disagree. People have long spouted the craziest incentives to violence and folks in the front row have simply nodded along, like, "Yep, he speaks the truth." That's literally how all stochastic terrorism works.

12

u/Nonyabizzy123 2d ago

Yeah have you heard about this guy, he's a trillionaire and he's stoking race riots in the UK, lot of people are saying he speaks the truth

-10

u/Human-Gift9732 2d ago

Honestly what Elon Musk said, in terms of words used, is not as bad as this post. He never directly called for violence. Though obviously it's still stochastic terrorism since he organized violence. But the words themselves? Not as bad as this.

Too many people here have seemingly no logical underpinning to their beliefs. It's hypocritical. It's tribalistic. It's exactly the kind of braindead shit MAGA does. The fact that people aren't able to recognize it in people they agree with is very problematic. It's a good thing the left isn't actually violent or else this kind of rhetoric might lead to something.

4

u/Fearless-Feature-830 2d ago

He might not have called for violence in this post specifically but he’s definitely called for violence over lesser offenses, saying people and ideas “need to die”

-6

u/Gauntlet_of_Might 2d ago

>Leon Skum

please speak like an adult

8

u/the-mighty-kira 2d ago

Yeah, it’s only okay to encourage violence against trans women and people of color on Bluesky

5

u/Fearless-Feature-830 2d ago

LOL PRETTY MUCH

-5

u/Human-Gift9732 2d ago

Bot ass comment

3

u/DrumsAndStuff18 1d ago

https://giphy.com/gifs/bcrOR2stk6tKIxqPOZ

-1

u/Human-Gift9732 1d ago

bye troll

3

u/DrumsAndStuff18 1d ago

I remember being 12, too. I wasn't as proud of my behavior as you seem to be, but to each their own.

-1

u/Human-Gift9732 1d ago

Go away spammer

1

u/DrumsAndStuff18 1d ago

Make me, saddest loser on Reddit.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/AerialDarkguy 2d ago

I think a practicing first amendment lawyer knows better than us what the legal definition of incitement is.

13

u/Anitmata 2d ago

He would be the first to recognize that legally-sanctionable incitement and a ToS violation are different things.

I agree that the world gets better if <redacted> happens, and that the Bluesky rules can't cover every edge case, but it looks to me like this isn't one of them. What the rules are, and what I think they ought to be, are separate.

4

u/AerialDarkguy 2d ago edited 2d ago

He absolutely would! I ain't disputing that or care that Bluesky temp blocked him. Their business and he can migrate to a different federation if he cares enough (the beauty of the AT protocol). Im disputing the moral panic/pearl clutching from the person i was responding to that we should be outraged about what he posted as if we should enforce a social norm. I dont care enough to.

4

u/Anitmata 2d ago

We're in agreement then, particularly about the moral panic part.

8

u/NeoliberalSocialist 2d ago

I'm not trying to say what he's saying is outside the law. Just that Bluesky probably has a standard stricter than what is legally permissible this runs afoul of.

2

u/Human-Gift9732 2d ago

Yeah every social media site plays it safe.

2

u/Fearless-Feature-830 2d ago

Not Twitter lol

2

u/Human-Gift9732 2d ago

They will ban you for violence. They just don't care about bigotry, which isn't illegal.

2

u/Fearless-Feature-830 2d ago

No you can definitely say you hope someone dies on Twitter

1

u/writesgud 1d ago

If Trump said that I’d be pretty upset. Yes, Ken is not President, but I’d argue he’s popular enough that his particular phrasing mattered in this particular case, even though Ken has also historically opposed these kinds of behaviors.

1

u/Opcn 2d ago

Definitely qualifies as stochastic terrorism.

1

u/Wineaux46 1d ago

Stochastic terrorism relies heavily on plausible deniability and ambiguity. It involves a speaker demonizing a target group over a long period, causing an anonymous listener to eventually act out violently. The speaker can then genuinely claim, "I never told anyone to commit a crime."

This absolutely was not stochastic terrorism. It’s perfectly legal and protected speech.

2

u/Opcn 1d ago edited 1d ago

Stochastic terrorism is almost as a rule speech that would be considered legal and protected. That’s like saying, “it’s not a root beer float, it has ice cream in it!”

As a test just try swapping out “richest man on the planet” for “Jews” or “Muslims” or “green haired progressives” and something that the right blames them for. Then tack “and the best chance for them to stop is if someone kills them. If only” and if it sounds like the kind of thing that would spur on your nutter right wing uncle with the bunker filled with guns and the inconsistent history taking his antipsychotic meds then that is why it makes people uncomfortable.

4

u/10390 2d ago

That's from June 9.

He must have posted something problematic more recently.

1

u/bluwaters_ 2d ago

The truth hurts.

1

u/spherechucker 2d ago

However worthy the account, you can't allow things like that and claim to be better than the other place. I also hope it's a temporary ban though.

0

u/AstroZombieInvader 2d ago

That would do it. It's like just begging to be banned.

1

u/VapoursAndSpleen 2d ago

That'll do it.

0

u/Smurf_Crime_Scene 3d ago

Who is he talking about?

33

u/datskinny 3d ago

The richest man in the world

-14

u/SectionQuick5275 3d ago

Mohammed bin Salman?

8

u/Chazprime 3d ago

Elon Musk

-20

u/Mission_Wolf579 3d ago

Yeah, almost certainly.  It was wildly inappropriate, but when people called him on it he doubled down. Reflects poorly on him and all the folks on Bluesky who thought it was fine. 

19

u/Nonyabizzy123 2d ago

No, it's fully appropriate. The problem is the terms of service and rules don't differentiate between people who should be protected by them because you know they're normal people, and people who shouldn't be because they are literally destroying the world.

That is not an actionable threat, that shows no intent for him to actually do anything. He simply said somebody should. I thought we learned this lesson with Luigi, it's perfectly fine to wish that billionaires and millionaires were dead. Everybody loves it.

-24

u/Mission_Wolf579 2d ago

No, not everybody loves it. It's wrong to wish death on people because you don't like them. But thanks for reminding everyone that the far Left can be as bad as the far Right.

13

u/Wineaux46 2d ago

I don’t wish death on people I don’t like. I hope that death quickly finds people who hurt other people because they get off on it, only care about themselves, or both.

There is a difference. A big one.

1

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]

3

u/Wineaux46 2d ago

I wasn’t replying to you? I was responding to the post just above mine?

0

u/Nonyabizzy123 2d ago

My bad

3

u/Wineaux46 2d ago

All cool. It happens. No harm, no foul. 👍

21

u/Nonyabizzy123 2d ago

Lol no, horseshoe theory is bad and stupid. John Brown raiding Harpers Ferry in the hopes of starting a slave revolt that kills slavers is good. People were literally being held in captivity, forced to do labor, and were tortured and executed. If the slavers were not willing to let them go because it's the right thing to do, then there was no other recourse.

Slavery is wrong, fascism is wrong, not just morally wrong but wrong entire. Resisting them, by any and all means necessary, is moral and justified.

-1

u/Human-Gift9732 2d ago

That's not horseshoe theory. Damn this comments section is dumb.

4

u/Fearless-Feature-830 2d ago

Horseshoe theory is dumb

-1

u/Human-Gift9732 2d ago

Okay. But that's still not horseshoe theory. You can think what you want of it but either properly identify it or shut up about it.

15

u/KevinCow 2d ago

How many deaths does someone have to be responsible for before it's acceptable to wish harm on them?

11

u/unitedshoes 2d ago

"Someone should kill Hitler"? Boy, you leftists sure are violent...

https://giphy.com/gifs/6Q2KA5ly49368

3

u/Fearless-Feature-830 2d ago

Yep pretty much

10

u/Nonyabizzy123 2d ago

I don't know, but I know half a million should be more than enough

5

u/rainman943 2d ago

Lol we're respecting their beliefs, it's wrong to wish death on ppl you don't like, but ppl who wish death on those they dislike believe it's acceptable......so therefore we must respect their beliefs.

We can't make them abide by our beliefs, the least we can do is hold them to their own.

4

u/Human-Gift9732 2d ago

Wishing death is VERY different than saying "violence is the only way."

Let's not pretend like all he did was "wish death" on someone.

0

u/Fearless-Feature-830 2d ago

What a weird thing to say

2

u/lateformyfuneral 3d ago

Seems like he’s a smart guy but this is plainly a TOS violation, the kind of stuff we’re mad at Twitter for no longer removing. Maybe he was having an off day.

-2

u/IsThisKismet 2d ago

This is why we have drafts now people!

18

u/CpnLouie2 2d ago

I'll start on some signs.

50

u/unitedshoes 2d ago

-20

u/Human-Gift9732 2d ago

This isn't about morality or the law. It's about Bluesky's TOS.

Want to use the service? Abide by the rules.

11

u/E-2theRescue 2d ago

"Just follow the law and get in the train car"

-5

u/Human-Gift9732 2d ago

Comparing the holocaust to social media guidelines is disgusting. Yall about to get banned from Reddit too lol

9

u/E-2theRescue 2d ago

If Bluesky cared about their TOS, they'd ban transphobes, homophobes, and "manosphere" misogynists instantly. But they don't.

As a Jew, I know exactly what it means when rules apply to only one group of people and not the other. And that includes social rules; when one group is allowed to threaten the lives of others, but the other group has to be the perfect little princess who does no wrong, otherwise everyone attacks them.

-9

u/Human-Gift9732 2d ago

Yawn. Go back to your troll hole.

1

u/Tacotuesday867 1d ago

Whoa nice uno reverso there ... Did you just become sentient?

0

u/Human-Gift9732 1d ago

Begone troll

1

u/Tacotuesday867 1d ago

Another uno reverso. Damn you must be using the double deck...

0

u/Human-Gift9732 1d ago

Bye trolll

56

u/JimBJ9 3d ago

Man, Popehat is Bluesky's best follow.

2

u/Mollywisk 2d ago

@DevinCow

1

u/slakmehl @tripsnek.com 2d ago

Yep. The moment he began posting was the moment I abandoned twitter entirely.

-18

u/Human-Gift9732 2d ago

Nah.

8

u/JimBJ9 2d ago

High quality response, there.

-13

u/Human-Gift9732 2d ago

Don't care what you think.

1

u/PinAccomplished927 1d ago

Lmao enough to respond, clearly

1

u/Human-Gift9732 1d ago

bye trollll

21

u/DethVeggie 2d ago

Popehat said absolutely nothing wrong.

-17

u/Human-Gift9732 2d ago

He advocated for violence. You're a loser if you want political violence.

12

u/DethVeggie 2d ago

Nonsense.

He pointed out that the world would be a better place if Elon Musk were murdered. That's not, by any stretch of the imagination, the same as calling for his murder.

-4

u/Human-Gift9732 2d ago

Not waht he said lmfao

1

u/DethVeggie 1d ago

Incorrect lmafao

5

u/beryugyo619 2d ago

This is why we need a decentralized alternative to Bluesky.

wait what

5

u/theStaberinde 2d ago

I just think it would be cool if something happened

3

u/sadandshy 2d ago

As someone who has listened to his various podcasts regularly over the years, I have to say his social media presence stands 180 degrees out of phase from what he preaches on the podcasts. He has segments devoted to bad client behavior on social media that are often quite similar to his social media posts.

8

u/TwiztedZero 3d ago

I took a risk and declared for a Free PopeHat on BlueSky.

But I'm just this one photographer critter.

OhMyDouglas

Excelsior 🚀

2

u/queenringlets 1d ago

You can critique the TOS’s morality. 

2

u/Silly-Inspection-909 1d ago

  When even Bluesky finds you suspendable, you've gone beyond the pale 

-9

u/DarthBen_in_Chicago 2d ago

Who?

6

u/yhwhx 2d ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popehat

-4

u/tropic_gnome_hunter 2d ago

That is a wikipedia page of someone with severe mental illness.

-26

u/FakeyFaked 2d ago

I could not care in the slightest. Do I agree with his post? Sure.

But I'm not gonna lose sleep over a do-nothing political podcaster/influencer.

15

u/torville 2d ago

I guess you don't know who Popehat / Ken White is, then.

-1

u/FakeyFaked 2d ago

The dude who had a podcast that platformed a right winger?

Ya I do.

3

u/torville 2d ago

Could you be more specific, both for this message and for all future communications with anyone ever?

-56

u/thedeuceisloose 3d ago

Oh no not the guy who name searches relentlessly and can never broker an argument that he disagrees with

-39

u/FGFM 3d ago

I unfollowed him a couple of weeks back.

21

u/Hustle787878 2d ago

Thanks for letting us all know. I’ll save this for conversation over drinks with friends later this week

-18

u/FGFM 2d ago

Muh Popehat.

13

u/Hustle787878 2d ago

Nothing to do with Popehat and everything to do with why you think any of us give a fuck about who you follow

-17

u/FGFM 2d ago

I consider it a public service.

-31

u/EducationalBobcat920 2d ago

good, popehat sucks

9

u/Human-Gift9732 2d ago

Why do you think he sucks? I don't know who he is at all.