I want instance eventually like CENSORSHIP FREE where people can say anything, like the voat except no limiters placwd on you and you can SAY ANYTHING whenever you want ans
I want instance eventually like CENSORSHIP FREE where people can say anything, like the voat except no limiters placwd on you and you can SAY ANYTHING whenever you want ans
I’m not sure if it is a good idea in the long run to swing the ban hammer so quickly.
Look, this instance is moderated. The admins keep it clean of chuds who want to hurt others. I don’t see a problem with banning someone who says they don’t have a problem with allowing people to do targeted harassment against vulnerable people and communities.
That’s a very good thing. Moderation is needed sometimes. That doesn’t have to mean that moderation is biased. All human beings are of course biased to some degree. But one can try to moderate unbiased.
Huh. “Targeted harassment”? I’ve not seen that statement. I’ve only seen him say that he doesn’t think that this is “objectively bad”. If you ask me, this sounds like a phrase that is intentionally misleading. If you take in mind what “objectively” means, it could mean either thing. I think it is not out of the question that this was meant to lure the mods into swinging the ban hammer.
The way I see this: If you don’t play the banning game, you can’t be outplayed like that. You win this war by not fighting in it. I’m in a different sub where people are actively trying to trigger the mods. You simply can’t win. People like that will create new accounts and the problem is there again. They are having fun, you have a problem.
Even if my interpretation of that user isn’t correct: Not playing the ban game is still the fitting way to deal with that. Because you can’t ban someone who shouldn’t have be banned, while at the same time you don’t ban people who simply come back with another account.
deleted by creator
Super late reply, but I think this is a fantastic point. It’s such a strange argument, too, and I’ve seen people experiment with this argument on, say, hackernews.
There’s a long list of arguments against moderating that experiments with different ideas from every possible angle. One argument is “banning won’t work, so don’t bother!” Another contradictory one is “banning is bad because it’s so powerful and effective, it effectively infringes on free speech!”
Another variant is a kind of whitewashing, where someone always just so happens to argue in favor of keeping trolls around, but for reasonable-sounding reasons that split the difference on every point and generally just don’t treat harassment as a big deal.
The only consistently I’ve ever found in these arguments is that they seem to work backward from a preferred outcome: supporting, empowering, protecting trolls. I like to think I’ve read enough comparative politics and philosophy that I could look at a meandering “don’t ban the trolls” comment and squint through it and see what a person’s underlying values are. But more often than not the only thing that clearly emerges is that it just so happens to be an argument for keeping trolls around. And it’s part of the broader experiment with seeing how far they can go in pushing the limits with bad faith arguments.
That is a misunderstanding. I didn’t intend that part for any kind of moderation situation. I mean this in the context of a user intentionally trying to trigger certain moderation techniques.
I mean, I think, it’s more “fun” for them, if they can closely walk the line of what’s acceptable and what not, and really make the moderators think hard, if they should ban them or not.
Really, your advocacy for more diligence when banning will straight-up increase the work that a moderator has to put into such trolls and therefore increase the potential for trolling.
If on the other hand, a moderator pro-actively bans people that try to state risky things and that test the boundaries, then they have very little work and they don’t get trolled, because they just click one button. The person re-creating their account and trying again and again, would be trolling themselves, because they create a lot of work for themselves, but not for the moderators.
That’s not what I’m advocating for.
Most previous Reddit alternatives have quickly turned into extremist communities. And what all of them had in common, was that they wanted to maximize free speech and minimize moderation.
The Lemmy devs are trying hard to avoid that for this Lemmy instance by sending a strong message of what’s okay and what’s not.
And I really don’t think, that is a problem. Anyone can host their own instance where they can welcome the extremists with open arms. Or they can join one of the many existing Reddit alternatives. If this one instance is different from all of the rest, that’s the smallest problem.
That is true. It is a problem with the instance, not the federated system.
Well, no one’s forcing you to be here (or in fact to not get banned), if you think there is a problem with how this instance is run.
Your comments are far off from constructive criticism, because you’re asking them to run the instance in a way that they don’t plan to run it, when there is plenty alternatives for you to go to.
And for the record, I like the way they moderate this instance. I don’t give a flying fuck about the free speech of someone that wants to state that hurting people is in any way fine. No one needs to hold that political opinion.
I’m not saying that it’s not fine to ever hurt someone. Self-defense is fine. What I’m saying is that no one needs to be allowed to proclaim that (there’s not exactly a heated debate around whether self-defense is fine or not), especially without differentiation that they mean self-defense and again, not on this instance.
We don’t need to uphold a perfect maxim on free speech, because yes, if you feel like there was just a misunderstanding, you can create a new account, and because you can discuss that on basically any other platform on this planet.
Of course not. What are you suggesting with that phrase? Are you showing me the door or something?
I think what I’m doing is constructive, and I’m not asking anyone to do anything. You say this as if I am asking for something like a customer would do. Absolutely not. I’m talking about it. Is that not okay for you?
This is internet communication. I don’t know you well enough and I can’t see your body language. That’s why I’m not sure how you mean this. Do you mean this literally how it is written?
Implying lemmy is not extremist community rofl
With posts like “Belarus protests are NATO propaganda” on the front-page we kinda joined the “reddit extremist clones” club already.
And that’s why it is important to have everyone being able to speak their mind. Person A might find ridiculous what Person B says, and vice versa. But only if they are able to talk to each other can we find at least a bit of common ground and understand each other better. If we think it is the best way to have fully isolated A region and B region, where only people talk to each other who already agree with one another, then we’re heading to a time of hate and eventually war between brethren.
Most definitely. Lemmy is already becoming a bit of a meme whenever it pops up in other discussions like Hacker News or Reddit because of this. If mods would stay away from actually “contributing” to this instance Lemmy would have been in a much better shape right now.
It’s also becoming a bit of an echo chamber especially with “lemmy council” or whatever just being spineless yes-men noodles that had absolutely nothing of notable value done since their introduction and just brigade posts with votes…
That being said it’s kinda moot to discuss it on a dev server. Lets just chill, enjoy the popcorn and wait for the real show to start at some point!
Maybe we can call this the times of the youth of user controlled internet. It will be rough for the time being, and errors will be made, but in the end, it will have been worth it. I’m rather certain. :)