At least for me its very difficult to make the line between preventing hate speech and allowing the freedom. I’m thinking to launch a lemmy instance, but the targeted audience is very sensitive to religion topics, and i’m sure if i allow it, this could lead to hate speech at some point and may fuel violence. Also, from my prospective, i just want my audience find new good things far from porn, porn sites are a lot, and i don`t want to mix it with other topics that can very constructive.
So please tell me your opinion, if banning these 2 topics can effect the freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech means that THE STATE doesn’t prosecute you for saying stuff. If you start a cat forum you can and certainly should ban people who come there to disturb people who just want to engage with the intended topics. Imagine if someone argued something like “I like dogs more” in every thread in that forum. If you ban them, you aren’t limiting their freedom of speech, you are just enforcing your rules. This is necessary for a cat forum to exist btw.
Tl;dr: you can set rules however you like.
Thank you, that sounds simple and clear.
Does not make it correct.
it does make it correct. spam is spam. anything that doesn’t belong in the topic discussion can and should be removed. it’s not a censorship of free speech. it’s a removal of spam. a distinct difference.
Yeah, sometimes you need to set rules solely to keep chatter from crowding out on topic speech. Even if you are generally pro-free speech, that can be necessary for community moderation.
Freedom of speech means that THE STATE doesn’t prosecute you for saying stuff.
I’d disagree with that. If government is nothing more than the organization that represents society and enacts its desires (for justice, for order, etc), then any proscription that applies to government also should apply to the society that formed that government.
If the government may not conduct an unreasonable search of your home, would you then permit a gang of unruly citizens to toss your house, find evidence of “crimes”, and turn it into the police? “It’s not disallowed, because they’re not the government” seems asinine.
If the government may not conduct an unreasonable search of your home, would you then permit a gang of unruly citizens to toss your house
This is a logical fallacy. Illegal search and seizure applies to the government. Breaking and entering and theft apply to individuals. In the US one is prevented by the constitution (like freedom of speech) and the other follows local laws. They aren’t the same.
Breaking and entering and theft apply to individuals.
Sure, sure. And just as soon as they catch them, they’ll punish them too! No need to worry about that.
This is a logical fallacy.
No. A logical fallacy is when I make a mistake in logic. Instead, I offered you a scenario where “freedom from unreasonable searches” applies only to and strictly to the government, and yet you’d still be in danger of such things, and asked you if you’d like that?
Your response was “but nyuh nyuh, nanna nanna boo boo!”. You’ve accused me of making mistakes in my logic, and said that my hypothetical doesn’t count. Or something.
In the US one is prevented by the constitution
And perhaps the Constitution needs to be updated. Perhaps it doesn’t go far enough.
Perhaps there are scenarios where non-government entities can engage in suppression of speech to such an extent that it should be prohibited and punished if the prohibition is violated. I do not think the OP’s scenario is one of those, but I can think of several where that might be the case.
What is going on here is that you, with your deficit of imagination and burning compulsion for status quo likes suppression of free speech when you perceive that you belong to the group in charge benefiting from it. Should that ever change, you won’t even be able to effectively complain about the negative effects of the role reversal.
No. A logical fallacy is when I make a mistake in logic.
We all do it, but you can chose to be a grown up when it is pointed out. Your logical flaw was of analogy. You compare freedom of speech to protections around search and seizure (correctly) and those to internet bans/theft incorrectly. When you do that you confuse two bodies of law that are almost entirely separate. btw trying to side track into the topic of enforcement actions on individuals is another logical fallacy. Look it up, or don’t and just whine when people call you out.
And perhaps the Constitution needs to be updated.
Currently in the US, freedom of speech has an undisputed legal definition. Update the defining legal document. When you are successful, you will have been right all along.
What is going on here is that you, with your deficit of imagination and burning compulsion for status quo
Make whatever assumptions about me help you make sense of your world. It says way more about you than it ever could about me that you feel the need tell me what I am thinking in your first response.
Your logical flaw was of analogy.
There’s no analogy. An analogy likens one thing to another. We’re discussing the principle of freedom of speech, in relation to what you believe to be a government-only prohibition against suppressing that.
I pointed out another example of the same thing. A principle that you probably think is sacrosanct, but if the “it only applies to the government” rule is used upon it, should seem suspicious.
You can’t really argue with it that way though, can you? It’d be a fucked up world if it only-and-strictly applied to the government, so non-government entities went out and violated it constantly.
I guess you really do have to say “nyuh uh!” and think you have one over on me.
Currently in the US, freedom of speech has an undisputed legal definition.
In the US, freedom of speech and all your other liberties are defined by case law. Constantly evolving, always in flux. Gargantuan in size (Westlaw’s case law database might be as large as 35Tbytes) To say that it has an “undisputed legal definition” is to not understand our legal system even slightly. If it were undisputed, why would there be court cases about it all the time? Why would judges need to rule on those and settle those disputes?
Update the defining legal document. When you are successful, you will have been right all along.
I’ve read this 4 times. I’m not sure what it is you’re trying to say, I think you might have lost the plot.
Make whatever assumptions about me help you make sense of your world. It says way more about you than it
The “I’m rubber you’re glue” rebuttal?
Yep, all of that case law defines what is and isn’t. Wait… then if you were right, you could just find a decision that shows exactly what you are trying to convince me of. Why not do that? I can’t prove the negative, but you could put this to rest with some easy searches and a quick case citation. Good luck.
Since you’re the instance hoster you have the right to decide what you want your instance to be used for (and not to be used for).
The system is federated, and those who don’t agree by the rules can post on another instance if they don’t like it.
Since you’re the instance hoster you have the right to
Not sure that’s a helpful factoid. He does indeed have that right (in most countries). But he also has a right to use a cheese grater on his dick. It’s just “not recommended”.
The system is federated, and those who don’t agree by the rules can post on another instance if they don’t like it.
Email itself is federated, and is the canonical example of federation. I believe that the Mastodon and Fediverse itself uses it as the goto example when explaining themselves to journalists.
But email isn’t an open system where anyone can connect anymore. Only gigantic companies are allowed to participate on a meaningful level. Anyone else who attempts to do so finds it impossible, and if they complain about it, they are met with derisive rebuttals about how only spammers would want to do that anyway. “Just get gmail!”
The fediverse needs to figure out how to deal with that particular endgame, but it won’t even be obvious that it’s a problem until it is already impossible to do something about it.
deleted by creator
Infallible
inphallible
It’s just “not recommended”.
lol. Thanks for reminding me about my right to grate my dick. It’s essential for a democracy. But, as to being able to decide what an instance is for (and not for), who says it’s “not recommended” to decide? Do you not recommend the norm Reddit has adopted of placing rules on the sidebars? Or the norm to have “Terms of Service” you, as a user, must abide by to use the service? Is it not recommended to do that?
Only gigantic companies are allowed to participate on a meaningful level.
I see your point regarding the clustering of email addresses around a few big players. I agree that is a reality. But what does “meaningful” mean here? Is it not meaningful for me to have the option to not use surveillance capitalist email services? Is it not meaningful for a whole community dedicated to that to not use them? Are things only ever meaningful when a great majority have adopted them? Are minorities never meaningful?
The fediverse needs to figure out how to deal with that particular endgame.
Could you explain how the Fediverse could arrive at an ‘endgame’ where it “isn’t an open system where anyone can connect anymore[, where] only gigantic companies are allowed to participate on a meaningful level”?
Do you not recommend the norm Reddit has adopted of placing rules on the sidebars?
On the subject of reddit, I recommend burning it to the ground and salting the earth so that nothing ever grows there again.
Or the norm to have “Terms of Service” you, as a user, must abide by to use the service?
“Terms of service” is laughable as a legal concept. If your service remains open to the person, they can use it. If you don’t want it to remain open, take technological measures to keep them out. If you’re unable or unwilling to do that, tough shit.
I think OP is putting the cart before the horse, and being a busybody. This is because he wants his forum to be full of people who are ready to discuss what he wants to discuss, but never stops to wonder if no one wants to do that (or, at least, the people he imagines as participating that they do not want to do that). So he crafts all these rules in his head, before anyone has even started to violate them. And he’s sort of cutting his nose off to spite his face, because there are almost certainly potential conversations on those subjects that he would want to read, to be part of, that he just doesn’t have the imagination to see right now. Even if he could prevent them, he’d be hurting himself.
But more likely, he’s just chasing away people he’d otherwise like to not chase away, because though he would certainly tell them they were welcome if he could know them first, they see those rules and feel uneasy about them despite the fact they would feel no impulse to violate them. You have to really wonder what goes through a rules-nazi’s head sometimes, even if it is uncouth to say aloud that you wonder what goes through their heads.
And given that forums are all about attracting a critical mass of people, such a policy just undermines that requirement. The network effect is a removed.
I see your point regarding the clustering of email addresses around a few big players. I agree that is a reality. But what does “meaningful” mean here? Is it not meaningful for me to have the option to not use surveillance capitalist email services?
Go spin up an email server. It’s easy, it’s like a one-liner using docker.
You’re not allowed to meaningfully participate in email. You’re automatically blackholed out of the system. You can consume email, provided by some other company. They won’t even charge you really (just force shitty ads on you, that they won’t even try very hard to keep you from blocking!).
This is a system you are not allowed to participate in. And, if we’re talking Lemmy-like forums on the fediverse, some day that will be the case too. If we go down that route.
Could you explain how the Fediverse could arrive at an ‘endgame’ where it “isn’t an open system where anyone can connect anymore[, where] only gigantic companies are allowed to participate on a meaningful level”?
If I have to draw a picture, I suppose. 5 or 10 years from now (or fewer, or more), you’d have alt-righters connecting more than more instances to the fediverse. As has already happened. But instead of just a few of these, hundreds and single-digit thousands of them. Some would automate that process so that every ijit clicking on a link on Stormfront would spin up a docker image or something like that with zero effort. At some point, it becomes impossible to sniff all of them out as quickly as they come online, until one day those in charge of the largest, oldest instances just decide enough is enough, and new instances are blackholed entirely.
And sure, you can log on to those instances, and still do toots and make comments, but now you’re not really participating, you’re just consuming.
Same happened with email. Not even sure when that happened, I think the 1990s… my technical hobbyist skills weren’t quite up to it to have done that back when it was still possible, and so I’m unsure of the exact date.
You might even like this outcome. It really depends on how well you identify with the dominant faction, though if I had my guess it will be some hybrid of the typical corporate actors and the large non-profits that share their culture. Good luck.
To me, what is great about federated platforms like Lemmy is that we can think and speak about these issue in a great way !
The way I see it, is that your instance is like an event you organize at your house, or a bar you own. Your place, your rules. Thoses rules depends on your culture, you intents, the people you want to welcome. Like in your house, you could ban anyone, for any reason you like. But like real social circle, if throw out people for no reason, or reasons other people don’t like, those people won’t stay, as they are free to go elsewhere.
And that is great. Because moderation is a difficult and subjective job. You can legitimately want to ban someone for something you deem innacceptable, while the person banned can legitimately think you are suppressing his freedom of speech. Because you could have different values, different cultures.
That is clearly different than the problem concerning centralized media or social network. Facebook for example created a place where everybody is and has to follow their rules. And if you disagree, you cannot leave and go to another instance. So the moderation is a huge issue. You have to protect freedom of speech there because users are stuck there. And alternative social networks like mastodon are not viable alternatives for now since the main interest people have in social network is that most people are there.
So yeah, I don’t have any problem with different choices of moderation in different instances. The only case I would see a legitimate problem would be if you create a place that is dangerous for the rest of society. Exactly like any social place. I’m for a variety of bars and clubs, with specific rules. But I will fight against the existence of a fascist bar because it’s dangerous even for people that do not chose to go there. The same way, it’s not because I promote diversity in instances policies that I think any instances with any rules should be allowed.
This final question of which social place should be allowed and which shouldn’t, that is a purely political question, and I could talk about it for hours, like many people here ! My view here in this : diversity good, fascist bad. Why no fascists allowed in my diversity ? Because they are the ones against this diversity in the first place.
Sorry for the long answer ! <3
Thank you so much for your effort.
I think “suppress the freedom of speech” is a sort of clumsily applied term here. What you’re trying to implement are effective house rules and I really don’t see anything wrong with that. Without simple rules like that, people could just hop into your space and be abusive assholes then claim “FrEe SpeEcH”. I’d say go right ahead and do what makes you feel comfortable.
What you’re trying to implement are effective house rules
Which should be besides the point.
You’re focused on his intentions. We should be focused on his results. Or, even more so, on the aggregate results of many people doing the same thing he will do.
If you focus only on the intentions, bad things will happen and you will all be confused as to why the world became a worse place than it was previously. Intentions don’t count for shit. And if you focus only on a single instance, you will be confused by all the emergent phenomena that just aren’t recognizable until you’ve scaled this up x1000.
Without simple rules like that,
Haha. “Simple rules”. I think they’re part of the definition itself of emergent phenomena.
So what’s your solution or answer to OP’s questions? You wrote a lot but I really don’t feel like you made any good points.
Interesting perspective. I do agree that the comment you were replying to may be more than slightly out-of-touch
You want to protect others from possible hate, dis- and misinformation as well as deescalate in the first place. I do not see that it violates freedom of speech or freedom of religion. People can freely go to other instances if they seek advise regarding those topics or research themselves on the internet.
As owner you can be held liable for actions of your users and if they deliberately spread nonsense and stuff that hurts other people feelings, while disallowing such hot topics you just want to prevent this in the first place.
Censoring would be for example that the ISP directly blocks every access to research and opinions in the first place, which gives people absolute no indicators or possibility to get aware of it. This is not the case here, because you are just another instance provider and write clearly before someone register on your instance, in public, your rules and code of conduct down. Everyone can see it. The ones who actually censors silently never tell that or handle things in secret, you do not do that by writing clearly things down, to make people aware of it. It is the opposite, transparency.
You also do not ban topics, you just decided for your instance that the topics are not your specialty or that you want to avoid possible conflicts because people can get emotional pretty fast. Ban would be to allow content, then remove it afterwards, which you do not do if its clear from the start what your rules are. Lemmy.ml also disallows porn, so this is clearly visible and known.
I find that better than an instance that is out of control, quickly bad moderated due to e.g. lack of moderators who want to handle such things and even possible infiltrated by people who seek to confuse others or start hate.
You want to protect others from possible hate
Ignoring that sometimes I have trouble even understanding what other people mean by “hate”, I’m not sure how you think that it’s possible (or even desirable) to protect others from hate. I’m not talking about lynchings, or other obvious, visible crimes.
But if some klansman is hiding out in his West Virginian shack, trying to send his hate vibes out into the world, believing himself to have psychic powers, how do you protect anyone against that? And why?
Nothing changes if instead of doing that silently, he then starts speaking about it. No one is hurt more when the words are spoken along with his thoughts.
If anything, him speaking those thoughts is good. As uncomfortable as they might make the rest of us, the last thing anyone should want is to train these people to be guarded in what they say and where they say it. To bottle it all up, where none of us can notice. To give him the inspiration that what he wants will require action instead of words.
Not only do such policies undermine free speech, they’re dangerous and counter-productive. It’s some sort of irrational magical thinking, that their words can convince others to hate along with them, but that your words are so ineffective that they can’t persuade others to stop. When coupled with policy that prevents people from seeing that this is untrue, it can concentrate the hatred and even allow it to grow.
Hate would be for example, slandering others, which is also explained in my Wikipedia link under limitations of free speech because causes hate and the repercussions that comes with it, as you say, lychings etc.
Hate would be for example, slandering others, w
I get it that this is your definition. But it’s defective and misrepresentative. Still, I replied with your definition in mind.
under limitations of free speech
Freedom of speech as a concept has no limits, and at least within US law, has no limits there either. You have to go back to quotes taken out of context from ancient Supreme Court rulings that have effectively been overturned (and were later retracted by the justice quoted) to think otherwise.
The trouble of course if you just don’t like freedom of speech. But the public is enamored with it and they romanticize it, so you can’t publicly be honest about not liking it. Thus the mental gymnastics that there are “limitations”.
because causes hate and the repercussions that comes with it, as you say, lychings etc.
The opposite is true. The lynchings happen when no one can talk about it. When you shut up people who were only ever going to mouth off, you inevitably spur some to take it farther and to venture into action.
But that takes a few years, and in the meantime you can pretend that you’ve “cleaned up hatred”.
Freedom of speech as a concept has no limits, and at least within US law, has no limits there either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations
Everything in the universe, including universe itself has limits.
just don’t like freedom of speech.
Cant take you serious, I am out of the discussion, there is no one on earth who does not like free speech, it is about misinformation and other variables, mentioned above and e.g. misinformation is not spreading freedom, it is to deceive others, on purpose or by accident.
Who cares it’s your instance do whatever you want. If you don’t want that content then don’t allow it
Thanks, sounds fair.
Free speech doesn’t mean that you owe anyone a platform for their speech. You can make any arbitrary rules on your instance and if somebody doesn’t like them they are free to start their own instance.
Fair enough, Thanks.
“and may fuel violence” … While this part is an absurd notion, your post otherwise brings up a great point… I guess you kind of create the community you want to see?
What I believe Reddit originally did when it started was (1) allow everything, but (2) create the illusion that a large audience liked certain things more than others… Is that right or wrong? Obviously Reddit is 100% complete shit now, but it didn’t used to be!
I hope more people chime in on this conversation… I’m currently trying to run a platform for events, and I create a filter for religious events… But it’s because those tend to be “spammy” or highly mundane… also an eye sore for me… people have the option to filter them back in, but I think about something similar to what you asked
I think I personally try to draw the line at “spam”. I want quality, simply
People will feel like God wants them to break that rule
Yes. But that’s what you want, to suppress freedom of speech. I think I can explain…
If you said “will I be picking my nose if I root around in my nostril with a finger, digging for those big squishy boogers that just feel so orgasmic when you yank them out”, then what we can conclude from the question is that you want to pick your nose but you are publicly embarrassed by the thought of doing anything that might give others clues that you do indeed like picking your nose.
You’ve never truly felt that picking your nose is wrong, or disgusting. But others make it clear that they believe it to be disgusting, and so you are forced to go along with everyone else in the pretense that picking noses is disgusting. But you just can’t help yourself.
And so it is with freedom of speech. You don’t believe in it as a principle. There are times when it is mostly benign (when people are saying things you agree with, or that are convenient and entertaining to hear). But past that, you can’t see much utility in it. In your brain, some heuristic is telling you that it’s much more likely to ban speech you find offensive, inconvenient, or just noisome than it is to ban your speech (especially in the circumstances you outline). And so, you’ve already made up your mind.
But how do you prevent people from pointing at you and shrieking “he just picked his nose!”?
So please tell me your opinion, if banning these 2 topics can effect the freedom of speech.
Because you’ll pick some moderators to “help with the workload”. At least one of them will be a jackass. He’ll claim things that aren’t religion are, banhammer that person, and you’ll be forced to agree with him that white is black and wet is dry, because there’s nothing worse than having authority questioned when it is your authority and you’re not personally harmed by it. When it becomes a public relations fiasco.
From that point forward, the definition scope creep of “religion” has been established, and it can go anywhere it needs to protect your turf. You won’t be doing that personally, there will always be that disconnect so that you have some plausible deniability. And to you, it won’t even look like this. You are a reasonable person, after all. Everyone else is just attacking you because of how awesome you are. Because they are trolls. And you will curl up all cozy in your echo chamber, knowing that the people who still remain all agree with you.
Thanks for taking the time to write all this, its not about me, i don
t follow any religion, so i dont mind, what i care about the most is, this will not fuel things could lead to harming people. I’m not banning this because i dont like religion, i dont like or not this is not anything of my business but i fear that my instance will turn into bigger problem far from the web.
