Lately I see a lot of calls do have specific instances defederated for a particular subset of reasons:

  • Don’t like their content
  • Dont like their political leaning
  • Dont like their free speech approach
  • General feeling of being offended
  • I want a safe space!
  • This instance if hurting vulnerable people

I personally find each and every one of these arguments invalid. Everybody has the right to live in an echo chamber, but mandating it for everyone else is something that goes a bit too far.

Has humanity really developed into a situation where words and thoughts are more hurtful than sticks and stones?

Edit: Original context https://slrpnk.net/post/554148

Controversial topic, feel free to discuss!

  • Quacksalber
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have no problem with banning genuine hate speech or extremism. If you’re polite about your point and don’t attack people, I’m fine with almost all opinion. If one has opinions I don’t like, I want to debate them. I can’t do that if they’re defederated

    • Tb0n3
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think we can go a little further than that and say that as long as you seem genuine in trying to put forth your ideas you should be allowed to exist. Calling somebody names in an argument doesn’t mean you’re not making points otherwise.