Do you want free speech lemmy instance like ruqqus

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

@sinewyshadow
link
13M

No, I have to say no. Because, from what I’ve seen on many alternatives, free speech brings out the worst people, and they say awful things just to say awful things. Granted Lemmy is a left-wing community, but if there was a free speech version of lemmy, there would be an influx of right-wingers, nazis, etc

@SloppilyFloss
link
111Y

Definitely not. Those instances almost always devolve into right-wing garbage and people spewing slurs for the sake of it. Anyways, the idea of free speech that people online, especially right-wingers and liberals, tend to argue for is sort of flawed and paradoxical. Here’s a very good reading on the subject.

Ephera
link
41Y

Also, they rarely actually value free speech. If you say something politically left-ish in one of those communities, they’ll be quick to call you a troll and ban you.

@Stoned_Ape
link
11Y

Would that really happen on an instance that values free speech? If so, they wouldn’t actually value that, right? What about an instance that actually does this?

Ephera
link
41Y

Well, yeah, these communities don’t actually value free speech. It’s often just used as an excuse for making more and more extreme statements.

And to be honest, I don’t think a community can be built around maximally valuing free speech. There will always be statements that people will be uncomfortable with (thankfully so) or that they just consider too dumb to even discuss.
And each community will naturally figure out what they want in their community, and once they’ve done that, they will protect that, either with transparent rules or by some admin randomly deciding that someone is a troll, or it may even just be the other community members telling someone off, without there being one person using elevated powers.

I mean, if you find a community that fits to your expectations, you’ll probably think, they have free speech figured out alright. Whereas if you enter a community with lots of people disagreeing with you and your posts getting removed, you’ll probably think the opposite, even if in total, they remove the same number of posts/comments.

@Stoned_Ape
link
21Y

I mean, if you find a community that fits to your expectations, you’ll probably think, they have free speech figured out alright. Whereas if you enter a community with lots of people disagreeing with you and your posts getting removed, you’ll probably think the opposite, even if in total, they remove the same number of posts/comments.

I know what you mean. No, it wouldn’t be like that for me. I actually think that everybody should speak their mind, not only people I approve of. If there are posts removed because of political opinion or disagreement, then there is no free speech. It is selective free speech, which is no free speech.

There will always be statements that people will be uncomfortable with (thankfully so)

In the history of humans, there were a lot of uncomfortable statements that got dealt with rather harshly. Today, they are common sense. For example that the earth rotates around the sun, or how evolution works.

or that they just consider too dumb to even discuss

I guess back then, there were people who thought that discussing the NSA and what they do is nothing but conspiracy theory, and what people are suggesting is just dumb and can’t possibly be true. Now we know that it was even worse than the “conspiracy theorists” were imagining it.

If you ask me, a good voting system is the way to go. Of course this depends on most people actually using it how it is intended. If someone does contribute to the discussion with quality posts, then the comment should be upvoted. Even if the comment disagrees with you, and even if the comment has a political stance that isn’t the same as the voters one. Downvotes should only be used for content that is not contributing to the discussion, is offtopic or even meant to hinder discussion.

That way, the most interesting and qualitative posts and comments are on the top, while nothing is being removed or hidden.

@Stoned_Ape
link
21Y

I personally don’t think that “left” and “right” are useful terms in political discussions, but I guess most people who know me would label me “left”, some even “far left”. On the other hand, some people label me “far right”. I’ve even been called a highly intelligent nazi manipulator with decade old accounts started with manipulation in mind. On the other hand yet again, I voted on many occasions for a political party that is literally called “The Left”, and I work daily with refugees.

Anyways, I strongly believe in free speech. I’m not sure if it is a good idea to label me in any way politically. I just simply believe in free speech and honest communication, especially when people talk about something they are disagreeing on very strongly.

If you ask me, these communications are worth a lot for everyone. If we can pull that off in a friendly and humane way, that would be a win for everyone.

Dessalines
admin
link
11Y

Good article. I’d also like to add this Philosophy of Antifa video by Olly, I suggest anyone watch the whole thing, but if you’re short on time, at least watch the sections on violence and free speech.

@maybesaydie
creator
banned
link
-9
edit-2
1Y

right-wing garbage

garbage

Didnt read it but you seem very biased

@SloppilyFloss
link
111Y

Indeed I am. Everyone is biased to a degree, and to think that non-bias is possible is silly. Anyways, you should read the link I sent you. I promise you that it is very interesting, and keep in mind that it isn’t anti-free speech. Rather, it is a critique of the common usage of free speech arguments.

Maya
admin
link
101Y

There are instances like this already. This instance is not one of them. Reminder that “yes/no” questions are not really open-ended, which is the point of asklemmy.

@maybesaydie
creator
banned
link
-11Y

Which instances

@SirLotsaLocks
link
3
edit-2
1Y

I haven’t looked personall but there is a community dedicated to finding and listing lemmy instances at !lemmy_instances@lemmy.ml

edit: I also think that once federation comes out in a month or two these instances will become more viable because right now any instance that isn’t chapo.chat or dev.lemmy are generally pretty inactive.

@telefunk
link
81Y

I like checking out new communities and instances as they pop up. I can’t remember a single one that was created under the banner of “free speech” that didn’t just turn into a gross space. I’m not saying it’s not possible. I’m just saying that in my experience “free speech” is code for far-right abuse geared to the most vulnerable people in society. If I see a community that has “free speech” as their main point, I take that as a sign to avoid it. Then a while later I hear about how some far right group is active there.

Dessalines
admin
link
101Y

Fully agree, free speech is just code for hate speech at this point. We have dozens of examples of “free speech” havens full of bigots, and literally zero examples of a “free speech” community that isn’t dominated by hate speech.

@maybesaydie
creator
banned
link
-61Y

I don’t really agree with you

I don’t think what you’re describing is gross

@cronjob
link
51Y

in my experience “free speech” is code for far-right abuse geared to the most vulnerable people in society

I don’t think what you’re describing is gross

So you think that abusing vulnerable people in society is okay?

@maybesaydie
creator
banned
link
-81Y

Don’t think its objectively bad

Dessalines
admin
link
61Y

aaaand that’s a ban.

@Stoned_Ape
link
21Y

I’m not sure if it is a good idea in the long run to swing the ban hammer so quickly.

@SirLotsaLocks
link
71Y

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.

@Stoned_Ape
link
01Y

Look, this instance is moderated.

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.

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.

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.

@otso
link
81Y

This seems like the same unprovable nebulous “don’t try to fix or deter bad things because people will thwart you in the end, secretly.” So far, I’ve only seen limited ugliness on lemmy, then the user is banned and it seems to get better

@abbenm
link
31Y

This seems like the same unprovable nebulous “don’t try to fix or deter bad things because people will thwart you in the end, secretly.” So far, I’ve only seen limited ugliness on lemmy, then the user is banned and it seems to get better

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.

@Stoned_Ape
link
-11Y

don’t try to fix or deter bad things because people will thwart you in the end, secretly

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.

Ephera
link
21Y

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.

@Stoned_Ape
link
11Y

your advocacy for more diligence

That’s not what I’m advocating for.

Ephera
link
41Y

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.

@Stoned_Ape
link
11Y

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.

That is true. It is a problem with the instance, not the federated system.

Ephera
link
31Y

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.

@Stoned_Ape
link
0
edit-2
1Y

Well, no one’s forcing you to be here

Of course not. What are you suggesting with that phrase? Are you showing me the door or something?

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.

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?

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.

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?

@work_at_google
link
-41Y

Most previous Reddit alternatives have quickly turned into extremist communities.

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.

@Stoned_Ape
link
11Y

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.

@work_at_google
link
-21Y

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!

@Stoned_Ape
link
11Y

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. :)

Ephera
link
41Y

Bro, either you wildly misread that question or you need to seriously think about things.

@HelpfulChampion
link
61Y

i don’t think that’s a great idea, but lemmy should allow NSFW content (porn)

Dessalines
admin
link
91Y

Anyone can start NSFW instances (we even built NSFW support into communities and posts), but this is a mainly dev moderated instance, and we just don’t have time to moderate that.

@work_at_google
link
31Y

I really hate how free speech arguments boil down to: “it’s gonna be alt-right haven!”. Why can’t we have free speech to call out mods or even government officials for being idiots while still keeping the nazis and conspiracy nuts grounded?

I feel that free speech philosophy suffers from the same issue anarchy does — it could only really work in small strong communities that would oppose bad actors instinctively. So maybe lemmy instance with peer reviewed/closed registration?

@SloppilyFloss
link
41Y

Well keeping the Nazis and conspiracy nuts grounded would require there to be a policing of their speech, so it’s not possible to be 100% free speech while keeping them in check. It’s contradictory. Sure you could have SOME free speech while limiting theirs, but then it’s not 100% like what I assume the OP is talking about.

You’ve got a point about it being easier with a smaller group of people, though. There’s no need to limit speech if you already know no one in the group will abuse it.

@work_at_google
link
11Y

Well keeping the Nazis and conspiracy nuts grounded would require there to be a policing of their speech,

That’s not necessarily true.
You assume that bad actors can only be dealt with through authoritarianism when liberal-left would argue that it’s possible to have a self-moderating community either through democratic moderation (upvotes/downvotes) or reeducation (e.g. defundthepolice).

Most “free-speech” proponents for discussion platforms such as lemmy are arguing against authoritarian censorship not a democratic one. Free-speech is an issue of authoritarians vs liberals not left vs right, but somehow people always pull out the “bad nazi right” strawman.

@Stoned_Ape
link
41Y

You assume that bad actors can only be dealt with through authoritarianism

That is sadly very common. As it seems, doing the wrong thing for the right reasons makes it a right thing. If you ask me, it doesn’t work out this way. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

@mastodont
link
21Y

It’s really interesting how far auth-left this community is turning out to be.

A loosely moderated place to ask open ended questions

If your post is

  1. Open ended
  2. Not offensive
  3. Not regarding lemmy support (c/lemmy_support)
  4. not ad nauseam inducing (please make sure its a question that would be new to most members)

it’s welcome here!

  • 0 users online
  • 6 users / day
  • 54 users / week
  • 153 users / month
  • 524 users / 6 months
  • 2.14K subscribers
  • 675 Posts
  • 8.7K Comments
  • Modlog