Can someone explain to me what Purism is doing differently than say a regular fedi instance that doesn't block anyone's instance and allows people to block whom they want themselves etc, and will address harassment of users if its directed at them, if needed?

Why does anyone need to police any speech at all? I can see almost everyone from niu, and if I don't like it, I'll just mute it etc.

@rice I think it's because they specifically refused to include examples of hate speech as things they would not tolerate on their instance.

This kind of refusal often serves as a tacit approval of hate speech (even if that's not the original intent of the policy). But more than that, refusing to be clear about what speech will not be tolerated puts already-vulnerable users in more danger and signals to those groups that their safety is not a concern.

@gid
But thats the issue. You can never be safe on the internet from actual harrasment, directed at you, or your group that you identify with. And especially if you have unresolved trauma related to it, it's not the responsibility of others or the instance admins to police speech, but your responsibility to seek out instances that have specifically outlined that they either block a bunch of instances, are a walled garden instance or have the features you need to moderate your timeline.

@rice @gid There's good evidence that moderation does reduce hate speech. If someone says horrible things about women or about people with disabilities, clear words and actions from moderators that these statements are not welcome do a lot to reduce them overall.

gizmodo.com/study-finds-bannin

Without these moderator words and actions, the nasties proliferate and even encourage each other.

We have evidence that you don't have to tolerate the bad to keep the good.

@JordiGH @gid
Hmm. Well, food for thought

@rice @gid If thought indigestion is not a concern, you might want to read the original study:

comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/

@JordiGH @rice thank you! I'd been trying to find something like this as part of another discussion.

@JordiGH @gid Thanks, I'll look through it.

@JordiGH
Now they just need to ban /r/The_Donald.

@JordiGH @rice @gid the problem is that this rhetoric of "hate speech", "intolerant thought" and so on is just a mask to carry out a campaign of censorship towards ideas considered "not politically correct" and push neoliberism, globalism, imperialism etc. It's just an ideology that makes people think they are "the good guys while the world is affected by some sort of viral disease that makes the others intolerant and bad"... and this makes most people elitist.

Yeah, "hate speech" is vague by definition and can mean absolutely anything.

@rice @alexl @gid It's not that vague. This is a favoured argument, that because we can't define bad, we also cannot define good. That because there's ambiguity, nothing should ever be done.

All laws are ambiguous. Absolutely all of them. That's why we have judges and juries, because every law requires a human interpretation to know if it was broken or not.

Ambiguity does not mean we should get rid of all laws. We can make mistakes when we judge, but that doesn't mean we should never judge.

@rice @alexl @gid This is both at the large, state-level (i.e. actual laws) and at the smaller organisational level (e.g. online codes of conduct).

Both have laws and procedures as to what to do when those laws are broken, both are interpreted by fallible humans. The only difference is that one of those can have a much bigger impact on lawbreakers than the other.

Internet laws cannot do anything, and banning someone for saying they dislike fat people or whatever without them directing harassment at anyone specific is just silly, and it will actually affect the whole flow of conversation badly

If someone says this IRL and you don't like it, you just stop talking to that person and leave. This can be done online as well. But that's just me and this is why I choose to be on instances which agree with this stance, rather than regulate

@rice I believe I already presented evidence that indicates that the flow of conversation was not badly affected, but perhaps we won't find agreement on this point.

@JordiGH
There's a difference between impolite & badly mannered speech VS directed harassment.Most people who talk about hate speech want to set very strict boundaries what can and cannot be talked about.It includes a specific way of presenting issues or plain ignoring them,because otherwise it's harassment and hate speech.

We can all agree that being impolite and inconsiderate should be frowned upon,but this can't be exactly regulated after the fact, better create an instance for specific ppl

@rice @alexl I have nothing further to add to this thread. I think I've made my points and you've made yours. Let's take it easy and occupy ourselves with other things.

I agree! I'll check out that study later anyway, I'm just expressing my issues with "hate speech" and related things.

Have a nice day/evening, let's just agree to disagree for now. And thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I mean it'd be nice if people would always define what they mean by hate speech, because it can mean different things to different people. There's no solid definition, and not only it'll vary greatly by culture, it varies greatly on an individual scale as well.

It'll also cause less drama as well.

@rice @alexl Hate speech is generally understood as statements meant to demean or brutalise a people due to them belonging to a certain social group. Good moderation should always forbid this.

@rice @gid @alexl @JordiGH hate speech is the speech you hate and consider unacceptable, to be eradicated

@roka Why is it always Japanese cartoon girls in Pleroma instances...?

@JordiGH ?

If you mean my avatar, it is from Fray, a gaiden game of the Xak game series from between 1989 up to 1994 released for PC-98 home computers and select consoles of the period. I highly recommend them, they are all very good.
@JordiGH (it's technically called Fray in Magical Adventure but the PC Engine CD port is just called Fray CD)
@JordiGH checked - I'm ashamed but they were actually for the PC-88 originally, with later PC-98 and MSX line of micros ports. I have no idea where the PC-98 association came from in my head, sorry ;;

If you can't understand Japanese, all of the MSX games have been fan translated to English, as did the third Xak game on PC Engine CD. Just note that Oasis translations are not really good - they were done by the Dutch ages ago. Have fun!
1557598160.jpg

@roka what an awesome clarification... /s

@rice @alexl @JordiGH @gid hate speech being too vague is actually a great reason to include examples of what you mean by hate speech in your code of conduct

@Satsuma @rice @JordiGH @gid No, no and NO. Read Enlightenment thought, their idea of ​​a liberal state and the concept of division of powers. And above all, dwell on the fact that together with power, responsibilities are assigned. Then explain me how moderators' responsabilities will be enforced in your vision. It's a fundamental point of the liberal State. Centuries to achieve this and you are fooled by the ideology of politically correctness.

Don't bother arguing with them

@rice

@gid @JordiGH @Satsuma @alexl
I disagree. If you have the time and mental stamina to do it, its good to argue with your political enemies. It's also good to work on code that lets you (and other people whose voices you might want to hear ) bypass censorship, so that you can communicate without having to convince someone that the specific thing you want to communicate isn't hate speech.

These people only want conflict. Arguing has to be done in good faith on both sides. Otherwise it's a waste of time.

Untag.

@meireikei "political enemies" is really exaggerated, even with the attribute "political".

My enemies are ideologies, especially those that keep the elites in power, and this makes the term "political" inaccurate because politics makes sense in democracy, otherwise it is a superstructure to distract 99% of people and not make them conscious to be in a sneaky regime.

@kelly_clowers @alexl @JordiGH @rice @gid exactly, wtf did I just read.
Getting bigots who make everyone uncomfortable out of the platform is somehow an imperialism.
Galaxy brain dot jpeg.

@alexl I was wondering if someone would say something like this.

This is incorrect. Banning people who like to say how much they hate fat people and banning people who talk about how much they want to kill all black people does not mean that we are pushing neoliberalism.

@JordiGH replace "ban users" with individual block by other user and we have the decentralization of power we need in a democracy. What people were asking to #Purism were just authoritarianism. Purism bans for harassment, that is enough and it has nothing to do with ideas, bigotry and so on.

@alexl @JordiGH I think that's completely nonsensical.
Harrassment is different from hate speech.
Both are harmful, and both absolutely NEED to be sanctionable.

People who think freedom of speech is somehow an untouchable liberty are usually either pathologically naïve, or acting in bad faith.

@alexl
I disagree, but also the point I was making is that Purism mentioned they would not tolerate "hate speech" but refused to give concrete examples of what they considered hate speech. If they had it would not have been vague.
@JordiGH @rice

@gid Purism policy is very simple and it's how social network platforms are supposed to work in most liberal countries:

- Illegal content: report it to authorities
- Harassment: report it to admins
- Content you don't like: block the author

This is perfect and consonant to Enlightenment thinking.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (Voltaire)

@alexl without giving examples of the kind of harassment they will not tolerate, it's as good as a dog-whistle intimating "we value protecting the free speech of the privileged over the safety of minority groups". Which is why people from minority groups were understandably concerned about Purism's policy.
Also I'd prefer not to be drawn into meta-discussions about the merits of free speech - 1/2

@alexl The original conversation was why there was criticism of Purism's terms of service, not whether that criticism is morally justifiable. - 2/2

@gid mate, "hate speech" and "harassment" are totally different things. For example I know a lot of people on Mastodon are victims of queer ideology. If a criticize it most of them will accuse me of "hate speech" towards people that identify as "queer". This could easily lead to an abuse of "moderation" against my legitimate ideas.

It would be totally different if I harass a certain person, with threats and the like.

Harassment is easily identifiable. The rest are legitimate ideas.

@alexl okay you've made your position very clear. I am not in agreement with you and never will be. I am dropping this conversation now.

@alexl @gid hi, voltaire didn't say that

which is interesting, because it means your quote is a fourth type of troublesome content that has a huge overlap with "hate speech": complete falsehoods that spread far faster than the truth

i'm curious what your solution there is. i doubt the Enlightenment will be much help, since it didn't have to contend with everyone being their own unmoderated speed-of-light platform

@eevee The phrase summarize Voltaire's thought and was formulated by his biographer. Great example of focusing on useless details

"Hate speech" is a generic term, ideally everyone is against hate speech, but no one can draw the line between hate speech and legitimate controversial ideas. In particular, in a world where the dominant ideology (neoliberism) uses other ideologies like the "political correctness" one to push certain concepts and censor others it become very dangerous

@alexl i thought it was interesting you started out with "read enlightenment thinkers!" and then ended with a pop misquote of one

have you ever been the target of hate speech? has anyone you're close to? basically: do you actually understand the impact, or is it just a fun thought exercise for you?

@eevee yes, by people that says they are against "hate speech", "fascism" and so on, that is a real paradox, not my quote

@alexl i'm sorry, you think "hate speech" means someone dunking on you because they think your ideas are bad? isn't that exactly something you expressed wanting to do upthread?

you are woefully underequipped to be lecturing anyone on this. perhaps you've gleaned enough from indistinguishable 18th-century corpses and should try listening to people who get to deal with the fallout from your ideology, instead of quietly ignoring it because it doesn't affect you

@eevee ha yeah it doesn't affect me, you're too hasty in making judgments to people you don't know

@alexl i /asked/ how it affected you and you came up woefully short.

@eevee I said YES and you are assuming it's NO. For me the conversation is closed. Re-read your messages and reflect on whether they can be applied to yourself. Have a nice day.

@alexl my apologies if i misunderstood. cheers.

@JordiGH @rice @gid but who is to say what is the bad? It’s a slippery slope, even my worst enemy should have a voice. Let them spew the vile hate fueled words many find offensive. For I will listen and try to understand. They cry out for attention and love. Because a piece of them is in need of repair. 🖤

A Mastodon instance for maths people. The kind of people who make $\pi z^2 \times a$ jokes.

Use $ and $ for inline LaTeX, and $ and $ for display mode.