This seems to be becoming the hot topic, the elephant in the chatroom - the balance between censorship / freedom of speech on lemmy. There are solid arguments for both ways, and good compromises too.

IMO the FAQ makes it quite clear what the devs have built here, and why. But recent discussions, arguments, make it clear that a lot of the most vocal users object to it.

I’m very curious. Many active users feel this way? Please vote using the up arrows in the comments.

Dessalines
admin
link
fedilink
392Y

I’d like to add that many projects besides ours have codes of conduct, and anti-bigotry rules. For the bigots, its not just the enforcement of those rules, but the mere existence of them that turns them into whiny babies. They get kicked out of nearly every space and are begging to have a platform to spread their bigoted views.

We will never give them one, and will do everything in our power to keep them marginalized and isolated.

@AgreeableLandscape
admin
link
fedilink
162Y

Well said!

@SloppilyFloss
link
fedilink
13
edit-2
2Y

For the bigots, its not just the enforcement of those rules, but the mere existence of them that turns them into whiny babies.

Case in point: /r/freebsd thread

@ufrafecy
link
fedilink
7
edit-2
1Y

deleted by creator

@abbenm
link
fedilink
62Y

For the bigots, its not just the enforcement of those rules, but the mere existence of them that turns them into whiny babies.

I’ve said this several times before, but one of the reasons I joined lemmy, and want to keep it active, is because I appreciate the values being brought to the project. It’s not just activitypub, but the kinds of people who are involved in the best projects, that are the among the reasons why I want to be on platforms like this.

Dessalines
admin
link
fedilink
12Y

Glad to have you on here :)

@xe8
link
fedilink
242Y

At first I wasn’t sure about the slur filter, because I thought it could be a bit of clumsy implementation as it could catch a lot of false positives.

But in practice I haven’t noticed it once. I don’t need to punch down on disadvantaged minority groups and call people slurs, so it’s not a problem. If it did catch me, it could be for some slur I had been using without thinking, in which case I would think about it and stop using that word. If it did catch me for a regular word I’m sure I could easily work around it.

Now I think it’s actually a great piece of social hacking, and I fully support it. It seems to annoy and keep away the right kinds of people.

As @realcaseyrollins@lemmy.ml said in this thread: “I’m not active here, but I would be if there wasn’t hard-coded censorship on the software”. To me that shows that it’s working.

We don’t need another reddit full of “centrist” free speech warriors. And we certainly don’t need another 4chan, 8chan, gab, voat, or parler.

It’s nice to have at least one place where as a minority you don’t have to wade through a bunch of slurs and insults and be constantly gaslit by the same circular arguments of people trying to convince you they’re fighting for some noble cause.

If a community is to have autonomy it needs some consensus on rules and standards of behavior. If we don’t want to have an authority ruling over us, we need to have responsibility, hold each other accountable, and create an environment where the most vulnerable in our community feel protected and like people are actually going to fight for them.

Kohen Shaw
link
fedilink
52Y

That’s actually a really good point overall. My issue is with hard coding from a technical point of view. The words to be auto filtered should be in a list with full CRUD capacities managed by who ever put up the server. Or at least a separate confing file. The current implementation is just kind of bad from a technical point of view, raising issues with other languages, since the banned words are not in a clear place.

@abbenm
link
fedilink
22Y

I think it’s probably important to emphasize at this point that what’s being discussed is essentially a decision about whether or not to put something in a config file. Which is a very different conversation than the grandiose free speech debates some want to have.

If anything, my main issue here is that people can point to this issue and use it as a jumping off point to make “free speech” arguments. It would be good to nip that in the bud.

@51524262fTw
link
fedilink
5
edit-2
2Y

Actually the part of insults will depend on the moderation. Nothing on the software will impede the user to say “go eat ducks” for example.

@abbenm
link
fedilink
3
edit-2
2Y

We don’t need another reddit full of “centrist” free speech warriors.

Exactly this. One problem I’ve noticed - there have been several times where people started threads like these, wanting to have long, fisky, point-by-point debates about everything.

I think it would be extremely helpful to say something to the effect of “this is not a place for The Free Speech Argument.” Even if it’s only applicable to this instance of Lemmy.

As @realcaseyrollins@lemmy.ml said in this thread: “I’m not active here, but I would be if there wasn’t hard-coded censorship on the software”. To me that shows that it’s working.

I agree, and this is well said. I haven’t found a need to slurs, and I feel that meaningful conversations that play out across paragraphs have more going on than just using slurs, so in practical terms (setting aside slippery slope arguments for a moment), I wonder what sense of values a person is coming from where they feel like that kind of filter is preventing them from expressing their values.

voat.co

Ah! the other day I was thinking I made an account in some reddit alternative years ago but couldn’t remember the name of it. Made like 2 posts until I realized it was just the same kind of politics everywhere.

You have ironically stated my reason for not by default holding all Lemmy users to the word blacklist in this comment:

If a community is to have autonomy it needs some consensus on rules and standards of behavior. If we don’t want to have an authority ruling over us, we need to have responsibility, hold each other accountable, and create an environment where the most vulnerable in our community feel protected and like people are actually going to fight for them.

@xe8
link
fedilink
102Y

I don’t think I’m saying what you think I’m saying.

What do you think I think you’re saying?

@AlmaemberTheGreat
link
fedilink
2
edit-2
1Y

deleted by creator

@roastpotatothief
creator
link
fedilink
182Y

There’s the right amount of censorship

@adrianmalacoda
link
fedilink
4
edit-2
2Y

I voted for this option but I would like to provide background for my opinion.

Regarding the slur filter, like others have said in this thread, the slur filter by itself doesn’t really constitute “censorship” in the sense of suppression of objectionable ideas, because it does no such thing (and wasn’t really designed to). It only removes words known to be derogatory. As these derogatory words are not necessary for expressing any ideas, the slur filter does not reduce the variety of ideas that may be expressed. In other words, it’s not anywhere close to something like Orwell’s newspeak, which actually constricted the field of ideas that may be expressed.

As I see it, the slur filter actually serves a different - yet probably even more important - role, in that it signals the values of the Lemmy project, as being friendly to marginalized people at the expense of free-speech absolutists. Probably in an ideal world we would not need such a distinction, but we do not live in that world. You can cater to people who think it should be their right to use whatever language they want, and feel that anyone who is hurt needs to “grow a thicker skin” or “deal with it” - or you can work to provide a more welcoming space to marginalized people. You will end up alienating some group, you have to pick and choose which audience to work towards. I would rather have an atmosphere of acceptance and empathy than “fuck you, deal with it.” I am not disadvantaged because I cannot use slurs on this website.

Some people take objection to the fact that the slur filter is hard-coded (and, as far as I can tell, might be deliberately made difficult to modify?). There is a misconception that software absolutely should not be “political” - this is not the case. Software, like any human creation, reflects the values of its creators. The free (libre) software movement, as an example, has always had as a political goal the advancement of computer user freedom. The decision to hard-code the slur filter into Lemmy is a reflection of the Lemmy project’s political goals.

Regarding moderation on this instance most of what is moderated is spam, with maybe a handful of exceptions, none of which I object to. It is possible the existence of the built-in slur filter reduced the work that human moderators have to do, by keeping bad actors away from this instance (and to some extent away from Lemmy as a project).

@51524262fTw
link
fedilink
22Y

This phrase out of context is so good.

navordar
link
fedilink
122Y

I don’t like any kind of automatic moderation. You can see how it ended on Facebook and YouTube — people are notoriously getting banned because of algorithm’s mistakes. For instance, in Polish, the word “pedał” normally means “pedal”, but it’s also used as a highly offensive word for homosexuals. The result? People getting banned for posting about bicycles and cars.

I think that instead of slur filter, mods could be automatically notified that someone used a certain word. Then the mods could manually check for context and ban if one really meant it.

Other than that, I think that the balance is right and haven’t had any issue so far.

In French too, as used for the same term “pédale”. I agree entirely with you. Still leave the final point to an human.

People who complain about “censorship” and “authoritarianism” while espouting the benefits of “freedom of speech” are exactly the type of people you don’t want around.

If there’s been discussion on lemmy.ml about this topic, I haven’t gotten around to seeing it. But from what I’ve noticed from witnessing this type of discussion all over the web is that these calls always come from either the most reactionary users or enablers i.e. those that would rather sit on the sidelines and either let it happen or put up a weak front because they have a right to “free speech.”

Unfortunately, this libertation-esque ethos runs deep in so many online spaces, where they’d rather have vague notions of freedom that obviously benefit them at the expense of others. Spaces like lemmy are not for them, and while there’s nothing lemmy can do about it, going against the grain and purging that type of vitriol is the best way to keep it from turning into the shitholes ranging from Reddit’s “enlightened centrism” to outright fascist spaces like *chans or gab.

You put it perfectly. The kind of people that are obsessed with getting that last little bit of “freedom” to drop slurs are not the people you want on the site.

@abbenm
link
fedilink
3
edit-2
2Y

People who complain about “censorship” and “authoritarianism” while espouting the benefits of “freedom of speech” are exactly the type of people you don’t want around.

Completely agree. Too often you see pledges to celebrate free speech from right wing spaces that are interested misconstruing valid criticism as suppression of speech. One of the most insane things I remember seeing were threads across reddit related to Charlottesville, where tons of commenters defending violence in Charlottesville by talking about free speech.

And then these same people pull back and act like they are talking about these ideas in the abstract, sanitized of any need to engage with the practical problems that motivate efforts to protect online spaces from violent incitement. I have never, never never never ever, seen people making these free speech arguments engage with this problem in a serious way at all. I have never seem someone stop and say “hey, I really care about free speech BUT I also realize that right wing mobs that spread violence use that argument as a cover, and I want to make sure I’m not inadvertently supporting their growth!”

I have never seen these people talk about how the modern internet, starting with gamergate in 2014-2015 and then spiraling out from there, created new, unprecedented problems related to swarming, massive bad faith engagement, etc. that poisoned and took over online spaces if left unchecked. I’ve never seen them look at that and say “I agree that those are problems, and I don’t want to gloss over them when I talk about free speech so my solution is _____” and they fill in the blank with something that isn’t completely crazy.

They never talk about laws passed to prevent BDS, a major free speech issue. They never talk about how to raise funds for the ACLU. Or supporting local media either through online or offline platforms. They never talk about legal funds supporting reporters who are caught up in court for their reporting.

Generally, all they ever talk about is online message boards. If you ask them to engage with any of this, either the mask falls completely off, or you realize they have never thought about any of it at all, and the responses you get are them reacting in real time to information that’s completely brand new to them.

There’s a saying I’ve recently encountered, that I’ve found helpful. It’s the notion of being in the wrong room with the wrong person. If you are talking to someone about free speech, who wants to frame it in a way that erases every problem that moderation has been fighting, that’s not a person prepared to have the conversation they are trying to have, and, in short, you’re in the wrong room with the wrong person.

poVoq
link
fedilink
2
edit-2
2Y

It’s a bit more nuanced than that. There seem to be quite a few people (often also with mental health issues) that completely swallowed the memified argument that you describe, without really realizing with whom they bed themselves (or delude themselves that those are the lesser evil).

It’s one of those rogue memes that mess with some peoples’ reasoning capacity.

(And calling everyone you disagree with or don’t understand a fascist really doesn’t help).

IMO there’s no such thing as “on Lemmy” in general, unless you mean this specific instance of Lemmy. But anyway, this problem of balance seems to be an eternal philosophical question which may be never solved once for all. Each instance chooses its own combination of censorship and freedom.

@leanleft
link
fedilink
72Y

strict moderation dissuades fascists.
but sometimes strict moderation leads to sacrifices i guess…

@sia
link
fedilink
2
edit-2
2Y

deleted by creator

@Danrobi
banned
link
fedilink
6
edit-2
2Y

I like the mod voting mechanism in Aether

@51524262fTw
link
fedilink
32Y

Never used Aether because it needs a client to work. It’s interesting that it works in p2p. How’s your experience?

@Danrobi
banned
link
fedilink
32Y

It works fine. A bit heavy on cpu tho. Theres a big issue with Aether. The content gets flushed out every 6 months. Terrible idea.

@51524262fTw
link
fedilink
22Y

I thought the excluded content was just on the main instance. Maybe the software could be forked.

@copacetic
link
fedilink
62Y

What FAQ? I cannot find any.

Avery
link
fedilink
52Y

I guess I’m not active enough on this site to see people posting about censorship on Lemmy. But on other networks (especially on reddit and twitter), the people complaining about censorship are just mad that there are consequences for saying nasty stuff.

@AgreeableLandscape
admin
link
fedilink
42Y

But on other networks (especially on reddit and twitter), the people complaining about censorship are just mad that there are consequences for saying nasty stuff.

It’s pretty much the same here too. Most comments we remove are from bigots, and spam.

@AlmaemberTheGreat
link
fedilink
1
edit-2
1Y

deleted by creator

I think it makes sense to look at this from the paradox of tolerance perspective.

@51524262fTw
link
fedilink
32Y

This reminds of stupid folks on reddit talking about it on Lemmy and the people messing on the one open issue about it. Really, keep your butts in place.

@roastpotatothief
creator
link
fedilink
02Y

There is too much censorship

@abbenm
link
fedilink
1
edit-2
2Y

I worry that the phrase “censorship” gets used as a thought-stopping cliche, especially given it’s repetition here.

You could ask the same question but with different words, e.g. “harassment, racism, and incitement to violence should be welcomed here.” And then ask people to vote up if they agree.

And you could post the polling options as different variants of that question: “There’s a right amount of harassment.” “There’s too much harassment” “there’s too little harassment.”

I mean… you could do it that way. And it would be equally as neutral as the questions you did ask. If you find that framing objectionable because only uses language that focuses on one side of an issue, well… yeah.

@roastpotatothief
creator
link
fedilink
0
edit-2
6d

I’m not sure they’re really the same question. Be careful of making a false equivalence.

Your questions are very loaded. Most people would answer “there shouldn’t be ANY racism at all!”

In that case, if the questions are really equivalent, everyone’s answer to the original question should be “there shouldn’t be any censorship at all” or maybe “there should be complete censorship for everyone”.

But I don’t think that’s the right conclusion. Therefore the questions are not equivalent. This is too simplistic.


Because you’re taking a very technical rhetorical stance, I’ll try to answer the same way.

Racism is a damaging thing. There’s no good side to it.

Censorship is also a damaging thing. But it can sometimes be a necessary evil to prevent worse evils. There is a sweet spot where it prevents more damage than it causes.

Racism is a natural feature that arises in groups of people, but censorship is a political measure. So if there is a damaging amount of racism in lemmy, censorship can be used to reduce it. While there is no underlying racism problem, then censorship causes its harm while producing no benefit.

These things are hard to measure, so censorship is normally a matter of very careful consideration.

@mrmanman
link
fedilink
-1
edit-2
2Y

jflmao @ this commie website

@AlmaemberTheGreat
link
fedilink
3
edit-2
1Y

deleted by creator

I’m not active here, but I would be if there wasn’t hard-coded censorship on the software. It’s come a long way since I saw it last. The blacklist has even shrunk, which is a good sign.

But I believe that the ultimate power should be in the hands of admins. If an admin wants to ban naughty words, fine, but it shouldn’t be the default, just like whitelist mode isn’t the default on Fediverse instances, but it’s still an option.

For me, it is about principle. Platforms, especially FOSS ones, need to be ones where people can speak their mind freely. Most people leave Big Tech platforms precisely because of the censorship they perform, but others leave because they don’t censor enough. My view: create software that by default does not censor, but can be optimized through settings to censor to a far greater degree than Big Tech can/does. This allows both sides of the aisle to be served in different ways by the same software.

Also, I voted yes on both “there’s too much censorship” and “the current level is just right” because there is a need for moderated spaces, like this one, it’s just that unmoderated spaces aren’t possible in the current Lemay code.

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
  • 40 users / day
  • 84 users / week
  • 154 users / month
  • 561 users / 6 months
  • 3.04K subscribers
  • 944 Posts
  • 11.3K Comments
  • Modlog