The phrase “free speech platform” sounds like a giant, enormous dog whistle. Which is a damn shame, because I used to enjoy that place, and now I’m not sure I will anymore… Don’t want to jump to conclusions, but is there ANY self-described “bastion of free speech on the internet” that is not a cesspool full of awful people? Just one?
I’m a white, heterosexual cis male in my 40s not living in the US, so this does not affect me in any way, shape or form directly, but it still feels just icky, unnecessary and tone-deaf. Guess I’ll post photos of my succulents and my goofy dog just on Lemmy from now on, bummer…
I think it is a dog whistle , here in India there are people who openly talk of genocide , homophobia and what not and call it their right to speech and expression !
The “funny” thing is that the moment those people have power they don’t have a problem going against free speech (see having books banned (in the US) or trying to stop people from voicing their opinion (Meloni in Italy))
It’s all just exploiting the tolerance of the system in order to make it less tolerant
That’s why completely unchecked free speech is a bad idea as it will eventually lead in its complete demise
is there ANY self-described “bastion of free speech on the internet” that is not a cesspool full of awful people
When you have a “free speech” policy, you attract principled free-speech advocates who want to discuss issues rather than shouting down unpopular opinions, a few people who are well-behaved and intelligent but write about ideas that the majority may find offensive or horrifying, and a whole bunch of people who got banned everywhere else for being rude and disruptive.
The best-moderated such place that I’ve seen had a policy requiring politeness and high-effort posts, which kept out the third group.
The second group can be tough to tolerate.
Sometimes they’re interesting, sometimes they’re a Holocaust denier who cites references, and you look up those references and they appear to be real papers written by real academics, and you know this is all wrong but you’re not a historian and even if you were you don’t have time to address every issue in this guy’s entire life’s work and you just wish the topic never came up. But you can’t keep out the second group unless you compromise your principles as a member of the first group.
Yes, that’s exactly what it means. Often, participating is very unpleasant. (I had to leave the Holocaust denial discussion - that one was too personal for me.) And I still think we ought to respect places where people do get to talk like that.
There is good and bad, and good people can’t assume they’ll always be able to fight harder or yell louder. On the contrary, bad people tend to be better at fighting and at yelling. So if good people fight and yell, they give up the long-term advantages that they may have. Those advantages are that appeals to our common humanity sometimes work, and that peaceful coexistence makes everyone safer and wealthier.
But to have these advantages, you need to be willing to tolerate people you hate and hear them out. After all, that’s what you want the other side to do.
(Sometimes that doesn’t work and you do have to fight, but if you’re in that position then you’re already competing on the enemy’s terms. The Allies didn’t win World War II because they were the good guys. They won because they had more guns, and next time the bad guys may have more guns.)
Yes there is. When your freedom directly invades the freedom of other people you are passing the threshold of what is tolerable.
When you form a group of people and declare it’s free speech to discuss how women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, for example, you aren’t just voicing any random opinion. Words have consequences and words can hurt people. You are past the line of tolerance because you actively invade other people’s freedom.
I can only imagine that thinking it’s freedom to allow these talking points to freely flourish online stems from the naive believe that nothing will come of these types of echo chambers, but it does. We have already experience with this from the incel and racist mass shooters and the online communities that helped birthing them.
I don’t say it’s easy to decide in every case when you should put a stop to a discussion. But simply allowing everything is not the way. And ironically this squabble community realises this by also not allowing everything.
Thanks for your response. Free speech is a nuanced topic and I appreciate well though out discussions about it.
I agree, It’s very hard to decide on a case by case basis what is and isn’t tolerable. That’s the main reason why I questions arguments for limiting speech–how can you make non-arbitrary distinctions between the two and who should have the authority to decide?
I think your example of speech advocating for women to not have the right to vote is a good subject to consider.
I agree, arguing that women shouldn’t have the right to vote is beyond rediciulous and in a vacuum, it would be reasonable to consider that speech intolerable. But on the other hand, wasn’t it freedom of speech that gave women the power to gain suffrage in the first place?
You mention drawing the distinction for intolerable speech at speech that limits the freedom of others. In an abstract sense I think that’s reasonable, but in practice I’m not so sure. Anti-suffragists often argued that granting women the right to vote infringed on their freedom. That’s obviously a morally wrong argument, but who should be allowed to decide that?
This is a great overview of the benefits and problems of free speech platforms without the immediate nosedive into the dogwhistle argument that seems to just be used as a thought/discussion stopper more than anything else lately.
I feel that it’s vitally important that free speech spaces exist. Places to discuss “ideas that the majority may find offensive or horrifying” are important, but they aren’t for everyone and they do by their nature offer spaces for “undesirable” people like holocaust deniers.
Like someone else said in another comment, I’m sure everybody on the left agree with the concept of free speech. So IMHO the real question is, why is it the case that platforms advocating free speech attract right wingers and extremists?
People confuse free speech with freedom to harass and driving people out. When 90 % of a site (as an example) are antisemitic rants and antisemitic memes Jews are actively driven out of the place. You actually make a place less free by allowing discrimatory content. People have to potentially hide their identity or have to endure constant hostility. In consequence you are removing their voices from the platform.
I guess most “people on the left” would agree that you can create such a platform for yourself and your buddies but do not call it “free speech” when in reality it just creates a venting platform for a certain type of people.
I dont think most people care about whether something is centralized or not. I definitely dont. I am on Lemmy because it is afaik the biggest alternative to reddit with the most content. If there was a centralized version with more and better content I would go there
Seems you’re kind of a leech though, that just wants people to keep creating these sandboxed for you to play in. Federated means they are less likely to have to do all this work to rebuild in the future.
The vast majority just wants to browse the place with all the relevant content so that they don’t miss out on current events. No need to resort to calling people leeches when the vast majority never even comment, let alone post.
honestly my experience starting this month is we’re already over the critical mass of users. there’s still stuff that isn’t here that I’ve seen yet but I don’t run out of content and get bored, so reddit’s already obsolete.
You’re not wrong, but that person shouldn’t be chastised for expecting a place that bills itself as being like Reddit to uhh… be like Reddit.
The lemmy federation should try to be something fundamentally different from Reddit, given the indisputable fact that it’s form led to its downfall like other aggregators before it.
“Let’s have a reasonable rational debate about whether certain groups should have the right to exist! If you’re a member of one of these groups, please be respectful to the people who say you should be exterminated!”
honestly reading this, it just sounds to me like he isn’t cut out for community management. It is stressful and hard sometimes, so I get it, but he’s going to kill his own site doing this. I did wonder about this before - it seemed like to me he regularly made changes based on feedback on a whim, and these changes were often rushed without much thinking. Needs to know when to pass the baton elsewhere and stick to development, but alas…
The last comments also speak to someone who’s probably hiding some contrarian views of his own.
‘Free speech absolutists’: “Ugh, take your political bullshit someplace else.”
No idea how people think this is a valid way to talk about people literally fighting for their right to simply be present in public spaces without people attacking their very being.
Literally why would you go to this website over Reddit. It has all the same problems and is just more boring.
“Free speech” is just a dog whistle and gas lighting now. Unless it’s fully allowing illegal content, then it’s not free speech, which is obviously sane to not allow. That’s why its a silly term to throw around in the first place.
“Free speech” is just a dog whistle and gas lighting now.
You’re not wrong, but I remember when free speech was more of a liberal issue. Freedom for artistic expression and all that. Freedom to curse in music, freedom to create and view porn etc.
I’d go watch the movie, but my partner says that I’m too sick and clumsy to get out of bed right now. I don’t know where I’d be if they weren’t around to keep me straight, always reminding me of things I’ve said and done when I have moments of brain fog.
I don’t necessarily agree with the use of the term in this context, but I took it to mean that it’s gaslighting in the sense that when you call it out as a dog whistle meaning “you can now be a POS on our platform”, people can respond with stuff like “Wow, so you’re anti-free speech? Do you hate America? Why do you want to censor people?” And shit like that, which is gaslighting IMO
I don’t understand what I’m looking at here? Some reddit-ish place is declaring free-speech then they immediately backpedal and say racist stuff doesn’t count, and also some admins left? So what is the material difference between a “free speech platform*” and lemmy which also doesn’t allow racist stuff?
It sounds like they’re going to be allowing anti-LGBT hate speech, which was formerly a ban-worthy offense on their platform. Reddit and most Lemmy instances have rules against this, so I imagine Squabblr is going to attract the same sort of people that like using Truth Social.
I’m really confused by this direction? The admin seemed… nice, and all of the users were “let’s all be friends and be postivive x!” type people. Not exactly the place for “free speech” dog wistle folks. He’s just going to alienate his entire userbase, I don’t understand the point.
***with the exception of racist content, the use of slurs (racial or otherwise), targetted harassment, and incitement of violence, ***
Did everyone just skip right past reading this part? That’s a lot of exceptions that cover a large gamut of activity that will continue to be not allowed. That’s not exactly “free speech” by definition, but it also is not allowing content that most platforms also do not allow.
There’s a lot of context. Basically, there’s been a few weeks of controversy over whether anti-lgbt viewpoints would be allowed. This post (along with the removal of two admins) was a statement that anti-lgbt viewpoints are explicitly allowed on the site as long as they avoid slurs and direct incitement of violence. With a site population that leans pretty far left, this didn’t go over well at all.
I am curious why the allowance of anti-LGBT viewpoints is so controversial. As stated above, all of the basic rules of civility are still being enforced.
Let’s say he decided to clarify that anti-Christian, or anti-capitalist viewpoints are not allowed. There are millions of people around the world who would claim such censorship is bigoted and narrow-minded. And they would be correct.
As long as people are polite to one another, what exactly is the problem with allowing people to express their perspectives?
This isn’t a dispute over tax code or which Star Trek is better, this is a bunch of bigots declaring a group of people don’t deserve to live and pretending they aren’t awful bigots because they’re doing it “politely”. That’s not a “viewpoint”, that’s a declaration of war.
I’m sure if anyone said that, they would rightly get banned. My question is why any disagreement or criticism is interpreted as a declaration of war?
LGBTQ people disagree vehemently amongst themselves about nearly every aspect of the LGBTQ experience. It’s not a topic that is well understood by anyone, not even people who are a part of it.
Religion and Work are every bit as important as sexual identity, if not more so for many people. Christianity isn’t Star Trek (at least not in the minds of Christians), yet we would consider a Christian who responded to honest criticism of their religion with hostility to be a narrow-minded fool at best, a dangerous zealot at worst.
Obviously there are debates going on in queer circles about politics and identity. None of those debates ask anything even remotely like “do queer people actually exist and if so do they deserve the same rights as other people?” That is the question conservatives seek to ask and the reason they want “free speech” on these platforms.
“do queer people actually exist and if so do they deserve the same rights as other people?”
I see people claiming that’s occurring far more often than I see it occurring. Maybe because the free speech sites I go on aren’t just using as a shield for far right wing beliefs.
I also see plenty of people claiming that someone is denying them the right to exist for simply asking questions that aren’t supportive. Yes, there are the assholes “just asking questions” in bad faith, but just as in the human body an overactive immune system causes more damage than it protects from.
The frequent immediate assumption of bad faith that seems to be commonly demonstrated by LGBT+ and allies when interacting with questioning viewpoints doesn’t help the cause.
As others have pointed out, that sort of attitude from religious people would have them labelled zealots. Why is this suddenly acceptable when it comes to the often far more confusing and less accessible topic of sexuality and dysphoria?
I think maybe you should ask why people have no patience for just asking the Jewish question, or wondering why we don’t talk about how great it was for Black people to be slaves. Even if you are asking questions in good faith, the questions themselves can have flawed premises.
Generally public forums are not a great place to just ask questions, especially about sensitive subjects. Asking the people in question in their own forums in a respectful way will get you much further if you truly have questions that you are seeking the answers to.
Because these 2 things are not the same, and by conflating them as such, you pretty clearly show what side of the fence you fall on. Debating on whether or not minorities deserve the right to exist is not the same thing as arguing about which brand of magic sky-daddy you subscribe to.
“Anti-LGBT viewpoints” fall along a pretty clear line. The same one that “anti-Jewish” and “anti-Black” views fall on. That these minorities don’t deserve the same rights granted to white people, or even that they shouldn’t be allowed to exist period. There has never been any other view presented by “anti-LGBT” people. They seek to exclude minorities from everyday life and eventually kill them off entirely. The arguments they use today against trans people are the same they used against gay people, which are just rehashed arguments they used to oppose equal rights for black people. There’s no politeness to be found there. Might as well say that we should hear the Nazis out on this “final solution to the Jewish question,” so long as they’re polite in their arguing their case.
Very few people declare themselves as anti-something. It’s usually the mob that does that to individuals who say things that with sufficient amount of mental gymnastics can be made to sound like bigotry. This kind of thought terminating labels are the easiest way to get out of critical thinking.
And yet “anti-LGBT” was the term used by the comment above to describe the kinds of viewpoints that they’re questioning why they aren’t allowed. It’s also the label used proudly by some of these groups themselves. Like the term TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist) which was coined by the group itself, but was later claimed to be a slur by that very same group when they realized how the majority of people viewed them negatively because of it.
Debating on whether or not minorities deserve the right to exist is not the same thing as arguing about which brand of magic sky-daddy you subscribe to.
Why do you people keep talking about “the right to exist”? That’s nonsensical. You either exist, or you don’t. No one can take your existence away from you, it’s not a right that can be granted by others.
What you are really talking about is the right to make assertions about the nature of human sexuality without being challenged to provide evidence for those assertions.
It’s quite clear that you have a persecution complex. I can understand why, I’m sure you’ve had some unpleasant experiences with certain people that have caused you to adopt this defensive posture.
However, your comment is absolutely reeking of in-group and out-group bias. Everyone who is part of your group is being unfairly persecuted, and everyone who is not part of your group is a genocidal Nazi.
Personally, I am fully in favor of any and all expressions of sexuality, as long as the resultant behaviors and belief systems can be debated and analyzed like any other human behavior or position.
To the neutral observer, it’s apparent that certain online communities cough are echo chambers that refuse to engage in honest discussion regarding LGBTQ topics and vigorously attempt to expel and shame those who do not adhere to the party line. This may be beneficial to your self esteem in the short run, but it ultimately does a disservice to your goals, assuming that you intend to enhance the acceptance of LGBTQ culture in our society moving forward.
Why do you people keep talking about “the right to exist”? That’s nonsensical. You either exist, or you don’t. No one can take your existence away from you, it’s not a right that can be granted by others.
Because that’s exactly the kind of “anti-LGBT viewpoint” you’re asking about. You don’t have to go far to find people claiming that being Trans is just a fad, or a cult of pedophiles trying to groom your children, or just mentally ill men, or a nefarious group trying to destroy young girls’ wombs through dangerous surgery. The list goes on and on, and that’s just the recent anti-Trans crusade. These are the kinds of views that they want to bring to social media sites and claim their free speech is being censored when they’re punished for it.
And these views are having real-life consequences. It’s now considered a sex crime for a man to wear a dress in Florida. For several years, transgender people were more likely to be the victim of a hate crime than black or Jewish people in the US, and there’s been an increase of hate crimes against both of those groups as well in the past decade. 8 out of 10 trans women in the US will be victims of sexual assault. LGBT people are one of the most likely groups to be refused medical care, often under the excuse that “it goes against my beliefs.” Some of these groups have even outright said that their goal is to “eliminate transgender people from public life, and eventually, existing entirely.” Some have straight up called for a trans genocide.
These same kinds of arguments have been trotted out for gay and black men - “they’re a bunch of pedophiles coming for your kids!” Or for lesbians - “they’re just damaged women.” Or my favorite, said by a 20-something year old coworker to a 16 year old lesbian coworker, “you’re not a lesbian, you just haven’t had a dick in you yet.”
To the neutral observer, it’s quite clear that certain online communities cough are echo chambers that refuse to engage in honest discussion regarding LGBTQ topics and vigorously attempt to expel and shame those who do not adhere to the party line.
I could not have said it better myself. Time and time again, science has shown that not only do LGBT people exist, but also how damaging the anti-LGBT rhetoric is. And yet, the “anti-LGBT” jam their fingers in their ears and scream about “woke indoctrination” before returning to their echo chambers. And eventually, that’s what these kinds of “free speech” platforms become. Echo chambers for hatred, as these people harass and drive off anybody with opposing views. As a wise bartender once said after kicking out a skinhead just for being a skinhead, “You allow one Nazi, and you no longer have a bar. You have a Nazi bar. Because if you allow one, then they’ll bring their friends, and eventually, they’ll force everyone else out.”
Also, you seem to have fallen for the “both sides” rhetoric they use to make themselves look innocuous while villifying their opponents. Stuff like the people encouraging those who who called in bomb threats to Target and threatened their employees for daring to have a line of Pride themed merchandise by saying it was protesting - that it was the same thing as people marching with signs against police brutality. You talk about the in-group and out-group bias of LGBT people while conveniently ignoring the exact same thing from the other side. Ignoring that these “anti-LGBT” people think they’re being unfairly persecuted and anyone who disagrees with them is a “woke” communist or whatever.
Well, I can’t say I agree with you, but I do appreciate your viewpoint and that you took the time to explain where you are coming from.
I wish you would try to be more welcoming to people who aren’t already in your camp, but at the end of the day I can’t blame you for trying to protect yourself and other people in the LGBTQ community.
Nobody is born Christian or capitalist. People are taught it. It’s not an innate property of a person. You can choose to not be either of those at any point in time.
If you’re allowing this kind of discourse towards LGBT persons, communities, etc. but still enforcing anti-racial policies then you’re obviously well uninformed and taking a specifically and completely anti LGBT stance, be it knowingly or unknowingly.
I would argue the same is true of LGBTQ individuals. I don’t see how one could rationally argue that an infant emerges from the womb with a fully formed sense of sexuality. Sexual identity is a nebulous trait that develops throughout our lives, not an objective, immutable physical fact such as the color of one’s skin or the chromosomes composing one’s genetic code.
Many LGBTQ people transition through a number of different sexual identities throughout their lives. An innate property is something that cannot be changed.
I suppose that it’s possible that we all get assigned a hidden number at birth that defines our sexuality absolutely, and people just struggle to figure out what their “number” is due to societal pressure, but that doesn’t really jive with our understanding of human biology, like at all. Nearly every trait we have studied exhibits both genetic factors and environmental factors.
This seems pretty disingenuous. Sexual and gender identity is not changeable by people, even if it can develop or change over time; so discriminating against it is categorically wrong, as these “free speech platforms” seek to do. In that regard it is the same as skin color.
I don’t believe in free will, so I suppose we have reached a stalemate. In my mind, one’s religion or favorite color is no more of a choice than sexual orientation. But I understand that most people would disagree with that perspective, and trying to convince you that free will doesn’t exist is beyond the scope of this discussion.
I’ll put it this way, there have been dozens of reddit alternatives over the years. Of those, pretty much every single one that advertised free speech has gone under from right-wingers, psuedo-nazi’s etc.
The fact is, the biggest subset of people deplatformed off of reddit or any platform are truly just awful1 , regardless of what they claim about unfair moderation. And if you don’t make it expressedly clear that you will not tolerate them, they will flock to your platform. Any claims of “free speech” even backed by “oh but nothing too awful please” is basically a dog whistle to them and they will flock to your platform.
If someone says something like this, they’re either naïve about how this works or they’re just saying it to maintain appearances. Either way, the platform is doomed.
[1] well maybe not recently due to api issues, but they’re still a huge subset and will be the majority again eventually
This is typically done to allow transphobia. Misgendering people is not racist, a “slur,” targeted harassment, or an incitement to violence. So that’s usually what this kind of “free speech” exists to champion.
Dressing as a woman does not inoculate one against transphobia, which means “dislike or strong prejudice against trans people.” Not sure why you block people with pronouns in their bio or why that’s stupid; and intolerance in the gay community is no reason to allow it to continue, there or anywhere.
I still don’t get how misgendering makes makes one a transphobe. If you look like a woman I’ll call you a woman but I do it not because I have to but because I generally try and be polite. However when we start policing language and demanding to be called this and that is when I sign out. It has nothing to do with not liking trans people. Atleast not in my case.
Misgendering someone is transphobic in exactly the same way that calling them the n-word is racist. It means you are prejudiced against that person for what makes them different — in this case it just sounds like you believe trans people don’t exist or are mentally ill members of their birth gender.
So yes, it means you are transphobic and you should self-reflect on improving that.
What?
Pronouns are not slurs in and of themselves, like the n-word is. They are perfectly fine to use and inoffensive in something like 97% of human interactions. The n-word is not.
How do they suddenly change to something as horrible as the n-word when you use the wrong one with someone you’ve never met before who outwardly presents as the pronoun you use, but internally has decided they are a different one?
There’s a big problem where people use the term “misgendering” as equivalent to “intentional misgendering”. One can be an honest mistake, the other is bigotry.
The n-word is not a slur “in and of itself” either; people can use it in non-pejorative situations… just as pronouns. The problem is the words being used to rob people of their dignity by invoking their minority status against them.
So yes, in that context, pronouns can be slurs against trans people.
No one is railing against “unintentional misgendering,” which happens to everyone. Though if you aren’t sure, non-gendered pronouns are a perfectly suitable alternative.
No, as I said, your argument is that they aren’t really the gender that they say they are, but whatever gender you say they are. That’s claiming they aren’t actually trans, which is denying the existence of trans people… which is transphobic.
Ask the groups of conservatives arguing that trans people are either just a trend, a cult of pedophiles trying to groom your kids, a cult trying to destroy young girls wombs or perform life changing surgery on children, or any of a number of other accusations that say that trans people don’t exist, including the two they mentioned. These are the kinds of “anti-LGBT arguments” that they claim are being censored.
I would imagine a place shouldn’t even need rules for that in the first place, but I understand people arent always the most kind they can be online.
I think also, a lot of what is called “bigotry” is often being subjectively identified (that is, one person thinks a thing is bigoted while another doesn’t, certainly one cannot and should not always default to agreeing that every interaction is bigoted otherwise no interaction would be allowed anywhere), but I would imagine a vast majority of “bigotry” would still fall under the very vast “slurs racial or otherwise” or “targetted harassment” exceptions.
I dont know all the details, but its possible these admins may have been overly strict in removing content they considered bigoted to the point of being disruptive. I used to operate a forum back in the early 2000s (for reverse engineering video game software) and there was one moderator I had to remove because they were too strict in their deletion of content for a similar reason. Entire threads would be left graveyards and there was no way to discern the context.
I am only presenting my own speculation of course. What you’re saying is also possible. The only way to know is to wait and see what happens. I think a big problem for those platforms is how quickly people bandwagon leaving when a small group decry a potential problem. It’s like when people try a new game with a low player population, then call the game dead. Those people leave, and they tell everyone else the game is dead. So nobody really joins, except the bottomfeeders nobody else wants.
There’s a screenshot elsewhere in the comments of him saying he was specifically removing transphobia and homophobia as punishable offenses from the rules because those rules “were being used to silence conservative voices.” That’s a pretty clear stance to me.
Before, you could write “I don’t like gay people” and get banned for it. Now you won’t get banned for that post, unless you use a slur.
At least, that’s my interpretation of it. Maybe it’s a bit overblown, maybe it’s a misstep by Jayclees, I dunno. I don’t think a whole lot of people are really using Squabblr for conversational content in the first place, though. 99% of the platform is just memes. They should just stick to that, honestly. Nothing wrong with being a 9gag replacement.
If he wants to let people have dissenting opinions, then he should at least add a downvote mechanic to the platform. Otherwise it will be riddled with bad-faith arguments and brigading.
Good context, I didn’t realize they don’t have downvotes. That changes things a bit, the downvote is a fairly necessary mechanic for facilitating any type of serious discussion online.
But I’m still curious if anyone can rationally explain why saying “I don’t like gay people” is worthy of a ban? Personally I would never say that, because it’s an idiotic statement. But why is that unacceptable for someone to say?
There’s a very simple response… “Why not?”. And depending how they respond to that, they could definitely end up in banworthy territory. Or perhaps they might respond with an obvious misconception that could present an opportunity to educate someone on their ignorance.
But I’m still curious if anyone can rationally explain why saying “I don’t like gay people” is worthy of a ban?
Because that is an absurd reduction, and not based in reality. In reality, nobody got banned for saying: “I don’t like gay people”. What people were saying was so much worse. Hell, even describing the issue as homophobia is absurdly reductive. While I’m in no way saying homophobia isn’t a thing anymore, it’s much less of a hot-button issue among deplorables than it was 10 years ago. These days, they mostly focus on whether or not trans people exist, and how bad they’re allowed to make trans people’s lives before it constitutes “hate speech”.
Make no mistake, this change in site terms will absolutely mean a rise in bigoted shit being posted there. That’s the MO of bigots: they say and do awful things, then try to gaslight you into thinking that really, what they said and / or did was not that bad, and besides, it’s free speech, innit? Managing an internet community is a never-ending fight against hordes of awful people who constantly try to turn that space into the next version of 8chan. You give Nazis an inch, next thing you know, they’re taking Poland.
If you think a simple attempt at discussion is pedantic and/or a trap, maybe a discussion forum such as this one is not a place where you will find many friends. I was sincerely trying to understand your point of view but it seems you won’t even try to justify it.
ANY internet platform that proclaims itself as a guardian of free speech is either overun by racists, xenophobes and the like or, at the very least, holds a significant number of them. There’s a reason most 2000s internet platforms (e.g, Reddit) eventually dropped ‘Free Speech’ as a policy over time.
In case you are not though, this not about “the left”. This is about ultraconservatives using “free speech” as an excuse to voice their hateful dribble while shielding themselves from any consequences. It is a dog whistle, and an obvious one at that.
I don’t exactly agree. I don’t think it needs to be political whether a person considers “free speech” equivalent to “racism” or not. But I do think it has to do a little bit with the currently magnified political divide.
I think youll have a hard time finding a person who considers themselves politically left that says “free speech = racism” I think that expectation is not fully understanding the context, and is rather reductive.
I think the issue comes down to what I mentioned before. Bigotry is a term that many people use as a shield to stop things they don’t want others to say, even if it is truthful or factual information. Both sides of the political divide employ this tactic, but it is approached in different ways.
If a person makes a joke about XYZ religion for example, but a person of XYZ religion says that joke is bigoted, who is right? Who gets to decide what is considered bigoted?
The person making the joke may be doing so because they hate all religion, or XYZ religion specifically, or they may be a member themselves and think its funny. The member of XYZ religion may be overly sensitive to jokes or remarks, or they may be particularly prejudiced against the person making the joke. There are many reasons a person can claim a particular statement is bigoted, but there is no way to say one way or another is definitively correct. Because of this, any person that is chosen to decide this is going to be effected by their own prejudice and bias. And sadly, such bias has become magnified so much greater in recent years compared to the past.
Believe it or not, there used to be a time where you could have two people with opposite viewpoints talking to each other about said viewpoints, and they would walk away laughing and smiling, considering the other no worse than they did prior to the conversation. These days, people wont even listen to each other. It just becomes a screaming/silencing/downvoting/reporting war.
“Oh hey buddy, I don’t think you should have the same rights as everyone else and you probably shouldn’t even exist. Let’s just laugh and smile and grab a drink, hahah”
Nice hyperbole. Is the post your responding to talking about that level of things at all?
Yeah… No.
It shouldn’t even need to be said that isn’t ok.
There’s an issue though with people claiming that’s happening when someone has disagreements in beliefs. A disagreement is not a denial of someone’s right to exist. A challenge of a core belief is not a statement that someone doesn’t deserve rights.
For example: Someone saying “I’m not okay with the use of puberty blocking medicine in treatments of dysphoria” is not the same as someone saying “We need to gather up all those mentally deranged ladyboy pedophiles and gas them”, but they are often treated as equivalent through mental gymnastics. Like saying that puberty can greatly increase feelings of dysphoria, and feelings of dysphoria can lead to mental duress and suicide, so by the transitive property: disagreeing with the use of puberty blockers is equivalent to wishing trans folks to kill themselves, denying them the right to exist.
It’s a multi step process to get from A to B amd it’s a ridiculous assertion, but I’ve seen that back and forth literally happen. More than once.
The phrase “free speech platform” sounds like a giant, enormous dog whistle. Which is a damn shame, because I used to enjoy that place, and now I’m not sure I will anymore… Don’t want to jump to conclusions, but is there ANY self-described “bastion of free speech on the internet” that is not a cesspool full of awful people? Just one?
I’m a white, heterosexual cis male in my 40s not living in the US, so this does not affect me in any way, shape or form directly, but it still feels just icky, unnecessary and tone-deaf. Guess I’ll post photos of my succulents and my goofy dog just on Lemmy from now on, bummer…
I think it is a dog whistle , here in India there are people who openly talk of genocide , homophobia and what not and call it their right to speech and expression !
The “funny” thing is that the moment those people have power they don’t have a problem going against free speech (see having books banned (in the US) or trying to stop people from voicing their opinion (Meloni in Italy))
It’s all just exploiting the tolerance of the system in order to make it less tolerant That’s why completely unchecked free speech is a bad idea as it will eventually lead in its complete demise
No, because awful people congregate wherever they are tolerated.
When you have a “free speech” policy, you attract principled free-speech advocates who want to discuss issues rather than shouting down unpopular opinions, a few people who are well-behaved and intelligent but write about ideas that the majority may find offensive or horrifying, and a whole bunch of people who got banned everywhere else for being rude and disruptive.
The best-moderated such place that I’ve seen had a policy requiring politeness and high-effort posts, which kept out the third group.
The second group can be tough to tolerate. Sometimes they’re interesting, sometimes they’re a Holocaust denier who cites references, and you look up those references and they appear to be real papers written by real academics, and you know this is all wrong but you’re not a historian and even if you were you don’t have time to address every issue in this guy’s entire life’s work and you just wish the topic never came up. But you can’t keep out the second group unless you compromise your principles as a member of the first group.
deleted by creator
Yes, that’s exactly what it means. Often, participating is very unpleasant. (I had to leave the Holocaust denial discussion - that one was too personal for me.) And I still think we ought to respect places where people do get to talk like that.
There is good and bad, and good people can’t assume they’ll always be able to fight harder or yell louder. On the contrary, bad people tend to be better at fighting and at yelling. So if good people fight and yell, they give up the long-term advantages that they may have. Those advantages are that appeals to our common humanity sometimes work, and that peaceful coexistence makes everyone safer and wealthier. But to have these advantages, you need to be willing to tolerate people you hate and hear them out. After all, that’s what you want the other side to do.
(Sometimes that doesn’t work and you do have to fight, but if you’re in that position then you’re already competing on the enemy’s terms. The Allies didn’t win World War II because they were the good guys. They won because they had more guns, and next time the bad guys may have more guns.)
deleted by creator
Who gets to decide what thoughts, beliefs, and groups are allowed to be tolerated?
Is there a quantifiable threshold for what is and what is not tolerable?
Does that threshold change over time?
deleted by creator
I don’t understand how one can advocate for censorship, yet be incapable of defining what speech should be restricted.
I suppose it makes sense for somebody unable to express their belief system to also be unable to consider more than one viewpoint.
Yes there is. When your freedom directly invades the freedom of other people you are passing the threshold of what is tolerable.
When you form a group of people and declare it’s free speech to discuss how women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, for example, you aren’t just voicing any random opinion. Words have consequences and words can hurt people. You are past the line of tolerance because you actively invade other people’s freedom.
I can only imagine that thinking it’s freedom to allow these talking points to freely flourish online stems from the naive believe that nothing will come of these types of echo chambers, but it does. We have already experience with this from the incel and racist mass shooters and the online communities that helped birthing them.
I don’t say it’s easy to decide in every case when you should put a stop to a discussion. But simply allowing everything is not the way. And ironically this squabble community realises this by also not allowing everything.
Thanks for your response. Free speech is a nuanced topic and I appreciate well though out discussions about it.
I agree, It’s very hard to decide on a case by case basis what is and isn’t tolerable. That’s the main reason why I questions arguments for limiting speech–how can you make non-arbitrary distinctions between the two and who should have the authority to decide?
I think your example of speech advocating for women to not have the right to vote is a good subject to consider.
I agree, arguing that women shouldn’t have the right to vote is beyond rediciulous and in a vacuum, it would be reasonable to consider that speech intolerable. But on the other hand, wasn’t it freedom of speech that gave women the power to gain suffrage in the first place?
You mention drawing the distinction for intolerable speech at speech that limits the freedom of others. In an abstract sense I think that’s reasonable, but in practice I’m not so sure. Anti-suffragists often argued that granting women the right to vote infringed on their freedom. That’s obviously a morally wrong argument, but who should be allowed to decide that?
This is a great overview of the benefits and problems of free speech platforms without the immediate nosedive into the dogwhistle argument that seems to just be used as a thought/discussion stopper more than anything else lately.
I feel that it’s vitally important that free speech spaces exist. Places to discuss “ideas that the majority may find offensive or horrifying” are important, but they aren’t for everyone and they do by their nature offer spaces for “undesirable” people like holocaust deniers.
Why bummer? It’s a great place so far in my opinion. The people are so much friendlier here.
More good options is always a good thing.
True, Squabbles just felt better suited than Lemmy to short, no context random posts and photos. Might be all in my head though :)
I misread that as you describing your dog as succulent.
That was some awkward English, fixed it now :)
It’s all good, I think I just needed to read more slowly!
Like someone else said in another comment, I’m sure everybody on the left agree with the concept of free speech. So IMHO the real question is, why is it the case that platforms advocating free speech attract right wingers and extremists?
People confuse free speech with freedom to harass and driving people out. When 90 % of a site (as an example) are antisemitic rants and antisemitic memes Jews are actively driven out of the place. You actually make a place less free by allowing discrimatory content. People have to potentially hide their identity or have to endure constant hostility. In consequence you are removing their voices from the platform.
I guess most “people on the left” would agree that you can create such a platform for yourself and your buddies but do not call it “free speech” when in reality it just creates a venting platform for a certain type of people.
Yo dog, I gotta know. Where are you posting those succulent pics?! I’ve been missing r/Succulents since the blackout.
Mostly !succulents@midwest.social and sometimes !cactus@sh.itjust.works for cacti (hope I’m linking it correctly).
Thank you!
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
>people are on the proprietary and centralized platform
>the proprietary and centralized platform does a bad thing
>people are moving to another proprietary and centralized platform
>another proprietary and centralized platform does a bad thing
I dont think most people care about whether something is centralized or not. I definitely dont. I am on Lemmy because it is afaik the biggest alternative to reddit with the most content. If there was a centralized version with more and better content I would go there
Seems you’re kind of a leech though, that just wants people to keep creating these sandboxed for you to play in. Federated means they are less likely to have to do all this work to rebuild in the future.
But as long as you get yours, right?
The vast majority just wants to browse the place with all the relevant content so that they don’t miss out on current events. No need to resort to calling people leeches when the vast majority never even comment, let alone post.
honestly my experience starting this month is we’re already over the critical mass of users. there’s still stuff that isn’t here that I’ve seen yet but I don’t run out of content and get bored, so reddit’s already obsolete.
You’re not wrong, but that person shouldn’t be chastised for expecting a place that bills itself as being like Reddit to uhh… be like Reddit.
The lemmy federation should try to be something fundamentally different from Reddit, given the indisputable fact that it’s form led to its downfall like other aggregators before it.
Federation just means it’s confusing to sign up. I don’t care if I am a leech. I just want content and the ability to use my preferred app to get it.
deleted by creator
Most of them seem to be moving to discuit, another centralised platform, Lol
This seems to be the reason for the change (jayclees is the creator and admin of the site):
https://ibb.co/48hY8fm
It’s always telling when people describe a minority as a “political movement” rather than… people
“Let’s have a reasonable rational debate about whether certain groups should have the right to exist! If you’re a member of one of these groups, please be respectful to the people who say you should be exterminated!”
“Alright. Compromise: We only kill half of you.”
deleted by creator
honestly reading this, it just sounds to me like he isn’t cut out for community management. It is stressful and hard sometimes, so I get it, but he’s going to kill his own site doing this. I did wonder about this before - it seemed like to me he regularly made changes based on feedback on a whim, and these changes were often rushed without much thinking. Needs to know when to pass the baton elsewhere and stick to development, but alas…
The last comments also speak to someone who’s probably hiding some contrarian views of his own.
Shame.
cOnSeRvaTiVe vOiCeS aRe bEiNg sILeNcED!!
i.e. boohoohoo, I’m facing consequences for my hate speech.
It’s the engineers doing graphic design but worse: engineers speedrunning social sciences.
Allowing bigots just means you are one. Rip squabbles.
As a wise bartender once said, “If you allow one Nazi, you no longer have a bar. You have a Nazi bar.”
No idea how people think this is a valid way to talk about people literally fighting for their right to simply be present in public spaces without people attacking their very being.
If true: Well, that’s the end of that platform I guess. Shame, I liked that there were so many alternatives cropping up.
Grand opening, Grand closing
I guess there wasn’t enough Squabbling.
Literally why would you go to this website over Reddit. It has all the same problems and is just more boring.
“Free speech” is just a dog whistle and gas lighting now. Unless it’s fully allowing illegal content, then it’s not free speech, which is obviously sane to not allow. That’s why its a silly term to throw around in the first place.
You’re not wrong, but I remember when free speech was more of a liberal issue. Freedom for artistic expression and all that. Freedom to curse in music, freedom to create and view porn etc.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
How is this gas lighting though?
I don’t think people really know what gas lighting is :p.
Relatedly, whether you understand the term or not, go watch the movie Gaslight where it comes from. Great film.
I’d go watch the movie, but my partner says that I’m too sick and clumsy to get out of bed right now. I don’t know where I’d be if they weren’t around to keep me straight, always reminding me of things I’ve said and done when I have moments of brain fog.
You wouldn’t go watch the movie, you’ve never even seen a movie.
Where the jewels?!
deleted by creator
I don’t necessarily agree with the use of the term in this context, but I took it to mean that it’s gaslighting in the sense that when you call it out as a dog whistle meaning “you can now be a POS on our platform”, people can respond with stuff like “Wow, so you’re anti-free speech? Do you hate America? Why do you want to censor people?” And shit like that, which is gaslighting IMO
They also removed the admins who disagreed with this decision. Jayclees and Daniel are the only “staff” left now. This is a really bad look for them.
I wonder why of all bad things they make an exception specifically for racism and not something else like pedophilia for example.
One is illegal in every civilized country and one is not
Squabblr*
They had a mid 2000s rebranding.
Removng vovls s col nd trndy!
No doubt it will be called sqbblr in a month
I don’t understand what I’m looking at here? Some reddit-ish place is declaring free-speech then they immediately backpedal and say racist stuff doesn’t count, and also some admins left? So what is the material difference between a “free speech platform*” and lemmy which also doesn’t allow racist stuff?
It sounds like they’re going to be allowing anti-LGBT hate speech, which was formerly a ban-worthy offense on their platform. Reddit and most Lemmy instances have rules against this, so I imagine Squabblr is going to attract the same sort of people that like using Truth Social.
In my experience forums that allow everything else will basically attract all the trans-, queer- and homophobes, misogynists and sexists.
That’s true.
I’m really confused by this direction? The admin seemed… nice, and all of the users were “let’s all be friends and be postivive x!” type people. Not exactly the place for “free speech” dog wistle folks. He’s just going to alienate his entire userbase, I don’t understand the point.
Sounds like they are going to speed run what happen with Voat.
I left a month ago because it was clear they were going this way. Glad I’m here
I remember trying out Voat. They weren’t even hiding their love for certain words.
Did everyone just skip right past reading this part? That’s a lot of exceptions that cover a large gamut of activity that will continue to be not allowed. That’s not exactly “free speech” by definition, but it also is not allowing content that most platforms also do not allow.
I am not exactly sure what I am missing?
There’s a lot of context. Basically, there’s been a few weeks of controversy over whether anti-lgbt viewpoints would be allowed. This post (along with the removal of two admins) was a statement that anti-lgbt viewpoints are explicitly allowed on the site as long as they avoid slurs and direct incitement of violence. With a site population that leans pretty far left, this didn’t go over well at all.
In other words, “you can pick on minorities as long as they aren’t racial minorities.” Yeah, great distinction.
I am curious why the allowance of anti-LGBT viewpoints is so controversial. As stated above, all of the basic rules of civility are still being enforced.
Let’s say he decided to clarify that anti-Christian, or anti-capitalist viewpoints are not allowed. There are millions of people around the world who would claim such censorship is bigoted and narrow-minded. And they would be correct.
As long as people are polite to one another, what exactly is the problem with allowing people to express their perspectives?
This isn’t a dispute over tax code or which Star Trek is better, this is a bunch of bigots declaring a group of people don’t deserve to live and pretending they aren’t awful bigots because they’re doing it “politely”. That’s not a “viewpoint”, that’s a declaration of war.
also their actions have crossed the line into outright genocide
Who are you referring to?
I’m sure if anyone said that, they would rightly get banned. My question is why any disagreement or criticism is interpreted as a declaration of war?
LGBTQ people disagree vehemently amongst themselves about nearly every aspect of the LGBTQ experience. It’s not a topic that is well understood by anyone, not even people who are a part of it.
Religion and Work are every bit as important as sexual identity, if not more so for many people. Christianity isn’t Star Trek (at least not in the minds of Christians), yet we would consider a Christian who responded to honest criticism of their religion with hostility to be a narrow-minded fool at best, a dangerous zealot at worst.
Obviously there are debates going on in queer circles about politics and identity. None of those debates ask anything even remotely like “do queer people actually exist and if so do they deserve the same rights as other people?” That is the question conservatives seek to ask and the reason they want “free speech” on these platforms.
I see people claiming that’s occurring far more often than I see it occurring. Maybe because the free speech sites I go on aren’t just using as a shield for far right wing beliefs.
I also see plenty of people claiming that someone is denying them the right to exist for simply asking questions that aren’t supportive. Yes, there are the assholes “just asking questions” in bad faith, but just as in the human body an overactive immune system causes more damage than it protects from.
The frequent immediate assumption of bad faith that seems to be commonly demonstrated by LGBT+ and allies when interacting with questioning viewpoints doesn’t help the cause.
As others have pointed out, that sort of attitude from religious people would have them labelled zealots. Why is this suddenly acceptable when it comes to the often far more confusing and less accessible topic of sexuality and dysphoria?
I think maybe you should ask why people have no patience for just asking the Jewish question, or wondering why we don’t talk about how great it was for Black people to be slaves. Even if you are asking questions in good faith, the questions themselves can have flawed premises.
Generally public forums are not a great place to just ask questions, especially about sensitive subjects. Asking the people in question in their own forums in a respectful way will get you much further if you truly have questions that you are seeking the answers to.
Because these 2 things are not the same, and by conflating them as such, you pretty clearly show what side of the fence you fall on. Debating on whether or not minorities deserve the right to exist is not the same thing as arguing about which brand of magic sky-daddy you subscribe to.
“Anti-LGBT viewpoints” fall along a pretty clear line. The same one that “anti-Jewish” and “anti-Black” views fall on. That these minorities don’t deserve the same rights granted to white people, or even that they shouldn’t be allowed to exist period. There has never been any other view presented by “anti-LGBT” people. They seek to exclude minorities from everyday life and eventually kill them off entirely. The arguments they use today against trans people are the same they used against gay people, which are just rehashed arguments they used to oppose equal rights for black people. There’s no politeness to be found there. Might as well say that we should hear the Nazis out on this “final solution to the Jewish question,” so long as they’re polite in their arguing their case.
Very few people declare themselves as anti-something. It’s usually the mob that does that to individuals who say things that with sufficient amount of mental gymnastics can be made to sound like bigotry. This kind of thought terminating labels are the easiest way to get out of critical thinking.
And yet “anti-LGBT” was the term used by the comment above to describe the kinds of viewpoints that they’re questioning why they aren’t allowed. It’s also the label used proudly by some of these groups themselves. Like the term TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist) which was coined by the group itself, but was later claimed to be a slur by that very same group when they realized how the majority of people viewed them negatively because of it.
Why do you people keep talking about “the right to exist”? That’s nonsensical. You either exist, or you don’t. No one can take your existence away from you, it’s not a right that can be granted by others.
What you are really talking about is the right to make assertions about the nature of human sexuality without being challenged to provide evidence for those assertions.
It’s quite clear that you have a persecution complex. I can understand why, I’m sure you’ve had some unpleasant experiences with certain people that have caused you to adopt this defensive posture.
However, your comment is absolutely reeking of in-group and out-group bias. Everyone who is part of your group is being unfairly persecuted, and everyone who is not part of your group is a genocidal Nazi.
Personally, I am fully in favor of any and all expressions of sexuality, as long as the resultant behaviors and belief systems can be debated and analyzed like any other human behavior or position.
To the neutral observer, it’s apparent that certain online communities cough are echo chambers that refuse to engage in honest discussion regarding LGBTQ topics and vigorously attempt to expel and shame those who do not adhere to the party line. This may be beneficial to your self esteem in the short run, but it ultimately does a disservice to your goals, assuming that you intend to enhance the acceptance of LGBTQ culture in our society moving forward.
Because that’s exactly the kind of “anti-LGBT viewpoint” you’re asking about. You don’t have to go far to find people claiming that being Trans is just a fad, or a cult of pedophiles trying to groom your children, or just mentally ill men, or a nefarious group trying to destroy young girls’ wombs through dangerous surgery. The list goes on and on, and that’s just the recent anti-Trans crusade. These are the kinds of views that they want to bring to social media sites and claim their free speech is being censored when they’re punished for it.
And these views are having real-life consequences. It’s now considered a sex crime for a man to wear a dress in Florida. For several years, transgender people were more likely to be the victim of a hate crime than black or Jewish people in the US, and there’s been an increase of hate crimes against both of those groups as well in the past decade. 8 out of 10 trans women in the US will be victims of sexual assault. LGBT people are one of the most likely groups to be refused medical care, often under the excuse that “it goes against my beliefs.” Some of these groups have even outright said that their goal is to “eliminate transgender people from public life, and eventually, existing entirely.” Some have straight up called for a trans genocide.
These same kinds of arguments have been trotted out for gay and black men - “they’re a bunch of pedophiles coming for your kids!” Or for lesbians - “they’re just damaged women.” Or my favorite, said by a 20-something year old coworker to a 16 year old lesbian coworker, “you’re not a lesbian, you just haven’t had a dick in you yet.”
I could not have said it better myself. Time and time again, science has shown that not only do LGBT people exist, but also how damaging the anti-LGBT rhetoric is. And yet, the “anti-LGBT” jam their fingers in their ears and scream about “woke indoctrination” before returning to their echo chambers. And eventually, that’s what these kinds of “free speech” platforms become. Echo chambers for hatred, as these people harass and drive off anybody with opposing views. As a wise bartender once said after kicking out a skinhead just for being a skinhead, “You allow one Nazi, and you no longer have a bar. You have a Nazi bar. Because if you allow one, then they’ll bring their friends, and eventually, they’ll force everyone else out.”
Also, you seem to have fallen for the “both sides” rhetoric they use to make themselves look innocuous while villifying their opponents. Stuff like the people encouraging those who who called in bomb threats to Target and threatened their employees for daring to have a line of Pride themed merchandise by saying it was protesting - that it was the same thing as people marching with signs against police brutality. You talk about the in-group and out-group bias of LGBT people while conveniently ignoring the exact same thing from the other side. Ignoring that these “anti-LGBT” people think they’re being unfairly persecuted and anyone who disagrees with them is a “woke” communist or whatever.
Well, I can’t say I agree with you, but I do appreciate your viewpoint and that you took the time to explain where you are coming from.
I wish you would try to be more welcoming to people who aren’t already in your camp, but at the end of the day I can’t blame you for trying to protect yourself and other people in the LGBTQ community.
Nobody is born Christian or capitalist. People are taught it. It’s not an innate property of a person. You can choose to not be either of those at any point in time.
If you’re allowing this kind of discourse towards LGBT persons, communities, etc. but still enforcing anti-racial policies then you’re obviously well uninformed and taking a specifically and completely anti LGBT stance, be it knowingly or unknowingly.
I would argue the same is true of LGBTQ individuals. I don’t see how one could rationally argue that an infant emerges from the womb with a fully formed sense of sexuality. Sexual identity is a nebulous trait that develops throughout our lives, not an objective, immutable physical fact such as the color of one’s skin or the chromosomes composing one’s genetic code.
Many LGBTQ people transition through a number of different sexual identities throughout their lives. An innate property is something that cannot be changed.
I suppose that it’s possible that we all get assigned a hidden number at birth that defines our sexuality absolutely, and people just struggle to figure out what their “number” is due to societal pressure, but that doesn’t really jive with our understanding of human biology, like at all. Nearly every trait we have studied exhibits both genetic factors and environmental factors.
This seems pretty disingenuous. Sexual and gender identity is not changeable by people, even if it can develop or change over time; so discriminating against it is categorically wrong, as these “free speech platforms” seek to do. In that regard it is the same as skin color.
I don’t believe in free will, so I suppose we have reached a stalemate. In my mind, one’s religion or favorite color is no more of a choice than sexual orientation. But I understand that most people would disagree with that perspective, and trying to convince you that free will doesn’t exist is beyond the scope of this discussion.
I’ll put it this way, there have been dozens of reddit alternatives over the years. Of those, pretty much every single one that advertised free speech has gone under from right-wingers, psuedo-nazi’s etc.
The fact is, the biggest subset of people deplatformed off of reddit or any platform are truly just awful1 , regardless of what they claim about unfair moderation. And if you don’t make it expressedly clear that you will not tolerate them, they will flock to your platform. Any claims of “free speech” even backed by “oh but nothing too awful please” is basically a dog whistle to them and they will flock to your platform.
If someone says something like this, they’re either naïve about how this works or they’re just saying it to maintain appearances. Either way, the platform is doomed.
[1] well maybe not recently due to api issues, but they’re still a huge subset and will be the majority again eventually
This is typically done to allow transphobia. Misgendering people is not racist, a “slur,” targeted harassment, or an incitement to violence. So that’s usually what this kind of “free speech” exists to champion.
Removed by mod
Dressing as a woman does not inoculate one against transphobia, which means “dislike or strong prejudice against trans people.” Not sure why you block people with pronouns in their bio or why that’s stupid; and intolerance in the gay community is no reason to allow it to continue, there or anywhere.
I still don’t get how misgendering makes makes one a transphobe. If you look like a woman I’ll call you a woman but I do it not because I have to but because I generally try and be polite. However when we start policing language and demanding to be called this and that is when I sign out. It has nothing to do with not liking trans people. Atleast not in my case.
Misgendering someone is transphobic in exactly the same way that calling them the n-word is racist. It means you are prejudiced against that person for what makes them different — in this case it just sounds like you believe trans people don’t exist or are mentally ill members of their birth gender.
So yes, it means you are transphobic and you should self-reflect on improving that.
What? Pronouns are not slurs in and of themselves, like the n-word is. They are perfectly fine to use and inoffensive in something like 97% of human interactions. The n-word is not.
How do they suddenly change to something as horrible as the n-word when you use the wrong one with someone you’ve never met before who outwardly presents as the pronoun you use, but internally has decided they are a different one?
There’s a big problem where people use the term “misgendering” as equivalent to “intentional misgendering”. One can be an honest mistake, the other is bigotry.
The n-word is not a slur “in and of itself” either; people can use it in non-pejorative situations… just as pronouns. The problem is the words being used to rob people of their dignity by invoking their minority status against them.
So yes, in that context, pronouns can be slurs against trans people.
No one is railing against “unintentional misgendering,” which happens to everyone. Though if you aren’t sure, non-gendered pronouns are a perfectly suitable alternative.
Are you okay? I’m pretty sure trans people exist. That’s the weirdest accusation I’ve heard for a while. What are they holograms then?
No, as I said, your argument is that they aren’t really the gender that they say they are, but whatever gender you say they are. That’s claiming they aren’t actually trans, which is denying the existence of trans people… which is transphobic.
Ask the groups of conservatives arguing that trans people are either just a trend, a cult of pedophiles trying to groom your kids, a cult trying to destroy young girls wombs or perform life changing surgery on children, or any of a number of other accusations that say that trans people don’t exist, including the two they mentioned. These are the kinds of “anti-LGBT arguments” that they claim are being censored.
There’s a lot of types of bigotry and other general nastiness that are not covered by that.
Normally I would not be so nitpicky with language but if multiple admins were removed / quit over it, that’s pretty suspect.
I would imagine a place shouldn’t even need rules for that in the first place, but I understand people arent always the most kind they can be online.
I think also, a lot of what is called “bigotry” is often being subjectively identified (that is, one person thinks a thing is bigoted while another doesn’t, certainly one cannot and should not always default to agreeing that every interaction is bigoted otherwise no interaction would be allowed anywhere), but I would imagine a vast majority of “bigotry” would still fall under the very vast “slurs racial or otherwise” or “targetted harassment” exceptions.
I dont know all the details, but its possible these admins may have been overly strict in removing content they considered bigoted to the point of being disruptive. I used to operate a forum back in the early 2000s (for reverse engineering video game software) and there was one moderator I had to remove because they were too strict in their deletion of content for a similar reason. Entire threads would be left graveyards and there was no way to discern the context.
I am only presenting my own speculation of course. What you’re saying is also possible. The only way to know is to wait and see what happens. I think a big problem for those platforms is how quickly people bandwagon leaving when a small group decry a potential problem. It’s like when people try a new game with a low player population, then call the game dead. Those people leave, and they tell everyone else the game is dead. So nobody really joins, except the bottomfeeders nobody else wants.
There’s a screenshot elsewhere in the comments of him saying he was specifically removing transphobia and homophobia as punishable offenses from the rules because those rules “were being used to silence conservative voices.” That’s a pretty clear stance to me.
Before, you could write “I don’t like gay people” and get banned for it. Now you won’t get banned for that post, unless you use a slur.
At least, that’s my interpretation of it. Maybe it’s a bit overblown, maybe it’s a misstep by Jayclees, I dunno. I don’t think a whole lot of people are really using Squabblr for conversational content in the first place, though. 99% of the platform is just memes. They should just stick to that, honestly. Nothing wrong with being a 9gag replacement.
If he wants to let people have dissenting opinions, then he should at least add a downvote mechanic to the platform. Otherwise it will be riddled with bad-faith arguments and brigading.
Good context, I didn’t realize they don’t have downvotes. That changes things a bit, the downvote is a fairly necessary mechanic for facilitating any type of serious discussion online.
But I’m still curious if anyone can rationally explain why saying “I don’t like gay people” is worthy of a ban? Personally I would never say that, because it’s an idiotic statement. But why is that unacceptable for someone to say?
There’s a very simple response… “Why not?”. And depending how they respond to that, they could definitely end up in banworthy territory. Or perhaps they might respond with an obvious misconception that could present an opportunity to educate someone on their ignorance.
Because that is an absurd reduction, and not based in reality. In reality, nobody got banned for saying: “I don’t like gay people”. What people were saying was so much worse. Hell, even describing the issue as homophobia is absurdly reductive. While I’m in no way saying homophobia isn’t a thing anymore, it’s much less of a hot-button issue among deplorables than it was 10 years ago. These days, they mostly focus on whether or not trans people exist, and how bad they’re allowed to make trans people’s lives before it constitutes “hate speech”.
Make no mistake, this change in site terms will absolutely mean a rise in bigoted shit being posted there. That’s the MO of bigots: they say and do awful things, then try to gaslight you into thinking that really, what they said and / or did was not that bad, and besides, it’s free speech, innit? Managing an internet community is a never-ending fight against hordes of awful people who constantly try to turn that space into the next version of 8chan. You give Nazis an inch, next thing you know, they’re taking Poland.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
How would you define freedom of speech?
Probably non-racist bigotry
Removed by mod
If you think a simple attempt at discussion is pedantic and/or a trap, maybe a discussion forum such as this one is not a place where you will find many friends. I was sincerely trying to understand your point of view but it seems you won’t even try to justify it.
ANY internet platform that proclaims itself as a guardian of free speech is either overun by racists, xenophobes and the like or, at the very least, holds a significant number of them. There’s a reason most 2000s internet platforms (e.g, Reddit) eventually dropped ‘Free Speech’ as a policy over time.
Found the conservative troll.
In case you are not though, this not about “the left”. This is about ultraconservatives using “free speech” as an excuse to voice their hateful dribble while shielding themselves from any consequences. It is a dog whistle, and an obvious one at that.
I don’t exactly agree. I don’t think it needs to be political whether a person considers “free speech” equivalent to “racism” or not. But I do think it has to do a little bit with the currently magnified political divide.
I think youll have a hard time finding a person who considers themselves politically left that says “free speech = racism” I think that expectation is not fully understanding the context, and is rather reductive.
I think the issue comes down to what I mentioned before. Bigotry is a term that many people use as a shield to stop things they don’t want others to say, even if it is truthful or factual information. Both sides of the political divide employ this tactic, but it is approached in different ways.
If a person makes a joke about XYZ religion for example, but a person of XYZ religion says that joke is bigoted, who is right? Who gets to decide what is considered bigoted?
The person making the joke may be doing so because they hate all religion, or XYZ religion specifically, or they may be a member themselves and think its funny. The member of XYZ religion may be overly sensitive to jokes or remarks, or they may be particularly prejudiced against the person making the joke. There are many reasons a person can claim a particular statement is bigoted, but there is no way to say one way or another is definitively correct. Because of this, any person that is chosen to decide this is going to be effected by their own prejudice and bias. And sadly, such bias has become magnified so much greater in recent years compared to the past.
Believe it or not, there used to be a time where you could have two people with opposite viewpoints talking to each other about said viewpoints, and they would walk away laughing and smiling, considering the other no worse than they did prior to the conversation. These days, people wont even listen to each other. It just becomes a screaming/silencing/downvoting/reporting war.
“Oh hey buddy, I don’t think you should have the same rights as everyone else and you probably shouldn’t even exist. Let’s just laugh and smile and grab a drink, hahah”
Yeah… No.
Nice hyperbole. Is the post your responding to talking about that level of things at all?
Yeah… No.
It shouldn’t even need to be said that isn’t ok.
There’s an issue though with people claiming that’s happening when someone has disagreements in beliefs. A disagreement is not a denial of someone’s right to exist. A challenge of a core belief is not a statement that someone doesn’t deserve rights.
For example: Someone saying “I’m not okay with the use of puberty blocking medicine in treatments of dysphoria” is not the same as someone saying “We need to gather up all those mentally deranged ladyboy pedophiles and gas them”, but they are often treated as equivalent through mental gymnastics. Like saying that puberty can greatly increase feelings of dysphoria, and feelings of dysphoria can lead to mental duress and suicide, so by the transitive property: disagreeing with the use of puberty blockers is equivalent to wishing trans folks to kill themselves, denying them the right to exist.
It’s a multi step process to get from A to B amd it’s a ridiculous assertion, but I’ve seen that back and forth literally happen. More than once.
And this is why federation is great.
Voat any% speedrun WR (glitchless)
They’re currently at level 4 (arguably maybe level 2) of the content moderation speedrun: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/hey-elon-let-me-help-you-speed-run-the-content-moderation-learning-curve/
Next step is for them to start dealing with DMCA takedowns.
Ah, so basically your site wants to see transphobic, homophobic, misogynist and sexist content. I see.