Not trying to defend her at all, but I seriously doubt those are actual examples of the things being said and even if, all of this would cause a regular person psychological distress (or "harm", even if not physical).

I don't know how Bulesky's TOS are worded exactly, but it feels a bit like that whole "Guns don't kill people, I kill people. With guns." motif.

Context

We told them not to use Bluesky and what will eventually happen but they didn't want to listen

No matter what people say about Bluesky, I will always say we should be using mastodon, until Bluesky makes good on true federation, it's still a platform that can be controlled.

I have read the entire Harry Potter series (before she outed herself as being scum). And calling her writing bad is disingenuous. She isn't a bad writer, or more accurately she wasn't. (It's notable that her writing started to degrade very sharply not long after she outed herself as a TERF).

She is a fucking horrid human being as are Orson Scott Card and Scott Adams along with a few others who's true colors shined through due to the pervasive nature of social media. But to blandly call their works "shitty" just as a lazy dig at them degrades you, not them. It makes your opinion worthless.

J.K. Rowling is an absolute dipshit asswipe who should be tarred, feathered, and run out on a rail anywhere she goes. And more people should say so as loudly as possible. But the Harry Potter books were beloved by millions for a reason. If only she had gone blind, deaf, and dumb after she finished writing them.

It did make good on true federation.

Isn't their federation really fucking weird though? Like you can't run a federated server unless you're capable of handling 100% of all the posts on the entire platform? That's a pretty huge barrier, and one could argue it's less "federation" and more "mirroring".

Personally, I think wishing harm on people that cause harm is completely OK. As for my wishes, those are inconveniences at most.

2 day old account. First and only engagement is to defend a transphobe...

Maybe, I can't really comment on what she did or "deserves" for it. I just know she made some transphobic remarks in the past, which is messed up. But there's still a difference between someone with a twisted world view and Trump/Putin who actually incarcerate and sponsor torture of people.

However, the discussion was on whether something is "harmful" or not and you may actually argue that her BS doesn't physically "harm" anyone either, if you try to make that point.

Context

Um what? The hate for JKR is quite active on bsky. OP smoking crack; we hate that bitch.

Eh, her works may not be so poorly written as to be shitty, but they're just a pretty average story with a good editor. Her action scenes were average, tension building slightly above, and her characters were below. I'm sure if you went through the books with a fine tooth comb you could find a witty sentence or interesting paragraph, but nothing that would really stand out.

I too am roundly disappointed at the prose of that children's series largely appealing to children and not adults who haven't moved on after thirty years

As you should be. Kids books should be just as good as adult books. Maybe not for the adults, but for the kids reading them.

Having lower standards just because 'it's for kids,' is ridiculous.

It's not like disney or dreamworks to half ass their kid oriented movies. They're often masterpieces in their own right. There's good reason that the lion king, the land before time, the road to el dorado, etc., are all viewed fondly even today. Hell, take it out of animation, even. Secondhand lions, wizard of oz, charlie and the chocolate factory... great stuff.

Writing for kids can be just as complicated and well done in characters, setting, and 'elements' of a story like tension. Compare the hobbit to harry potter. The words tolkien chose may have been simple, in comparison to his the lord of the rings novels, but everything else was pretty damn good.

Brb reading Dubliners to elementary students and making fun of them when they don't have an opinion on the themes of Irish nationalism and its implications in an ever more interconnected world.

This obviously has nothing on the complex thought presented by UP, of course. My 500 page thesis on its handling of grief (tl;Dr talking dogs heal all wounds) will shortly follow.

No.
Their federation does differ from the fediverse's, essentially, people have PDSes (personal data servers) which are just dumb datastores. These store data like your posts, likes, follows and blocks publicly.

AppViews are the other part, these take the data from PDSes and index it, and sort out interactions/notifications.

AppViewLite, for example, can be self hosted on any computer, and can be set to only take posts from select users, and discard posts after a while.

Is this federation, though? I've always thought of federation as a technical description of a platform's network topology, that it is several nodes communicating with one another to provide an overall platform.

Like, an AppViewLite is basically analogous to a Nostr replay and no one describes Nostr as federated.

A more interesting conversation is whether grafting federation onto Bluesky is worth the effort. If indexing the network can be done for a reasonable price, which it seems to be, then I don't see why people would put in the effort. If an app view/relay goes bad then you can just switch and get mostly the same experience.

I still believe that the ActivityPub solution of the multi stakeholder platform is a better direction, but I don't think the Bluesky idea of super easy migration should be dismissed out of hand like it so often is on this side of the conversation.

They are absolutely equivalent and it’s ridiculous to argue otherwise.

Yeah, it's still federation. It's just pull-based rather than push based.
Bluesky was made to be a decentralised twitter from the beginning.