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!
Your mixing the need for moderation which I don’t dispute with the call for defederation by users who feel offended by lawful freedom of speech.
So if you want to make an argument against what I actually said/wrote: Be my guest.
Defederation is a fancy term for shunning. Which is an appropriate response when a community fails to regulate it’s speech. Differnent communities will have different standards based on but not limited to local social mores, geographical region, language and probably a lot more. I appreciate your effort in defending Freedom of Speech on this platform, but the sad fact remains that most people on the internet have no concept on how Rhetoric, Logic, and Burden of Proof actually work so it just ends up with everyone throwing shit at eachother.
Partially agree here. Free speech has obviously limits (when it becomes unlawful or it’s weaponized) and moderation/oversight is needed. Every garden needs a gardener, without care and limitations even the most beautiful garden becomes a dangerous jungle (or a desert).
If what you postulated, a community fails to regulate free speech, happens I can see why defederation is considered to contain a growing issue.
However it seems that defederation, or at least the call for defederation, is now becoming a tool for the cancellation-fraction on both ends of the political spectrum so they can all together avoid talking or sewing their believe-system challenged. I see this as a great loss of opportunity on one side and also as a danger to society in the other.
Yes! And isn’t that an amazing chance to learn, debate, and grow? Federation can open up a world of new thought and concepts to someone who started his journey on a server in a country were religious laws restrict free speech, sexual liberation, human rights etc.
When I started this community a day ago I expected everything and was still somewhat pleasantly surprised by some contributions I would learn to understand and respect while still disagreeing on some aspects.
And even if shit is thrown around, it’s worth the effort and maybe I’ll still learn something, even if it is to moderate a bit better or to try to explain myself a little bit better.
You seem like good people. Saving Persuasion by Bryan Garsten is an academic attempt to answer the question we’re discussing here and his position is that we need to protect these places, but like everyone else, isn’t exactly clear on how. I’ve been analyzing the problem informally since about 1996 when I first logged into an IRC channel and got banned for trolling. I believe I’ve gotten better about it since, but I am no Watchman, and I haven’t met many who could perform the role well enough to not allow natural bias’ to enter into the common language of the community.
There goes my reputation. /s
Thanks, I’ll have a read later. Bookmarked.
I participated in so many Mailbox-Flamewars in the early 90ies, then in the OS-wars (Atari vs Mac vs PC) during Usenet times but i never perceived it as toxic as it is today. Maybe the high entry barrier served as filters?
I don’t know if I’ve gotten better, I want to believe that’s the case but I keep trying.
I personally think the technical barrier ensured that whoever was participating already had a lot of shared characteristics. The userbase was also fractionally smaller so the inbox wars only lasted as long as people paid attention to it. A third factor was that everything was so much more ephemeral back then. You could be raging about who was the better band, Radiohead or Oasis with the passion and conviction of any true Radiohead fan would have and then the next day the Webforum dissappears.
I worry about the ones who have stopped trying because they are relentless, loud, and oftentimes way off the mark.
These are private instances run by private entities. There is no “lawful freedom of speech” because no governments are involved. Furthermore, lemmy is global, not just American.
Lemmy is not private just because instances are owned by individuals. If you post or comment you broadcast which is public and regulated by free speech laws where applicable.
Are you trolling me right now
You seem to have a simply wrong understanding of freedom of speech. Just because it’s the internet, doesn’t make it a right for you to get your voice heard anywhere you want it. Just like people can walk away or plug their ears if you are shouting in a public park, they can choose not to join a group you are in online. If I set up a podcast, I’m not infringing on your rights if I don’t let you on. If I let 100 other people join whenever they want but don’t let you join, I’m not infringing on your rights, I’m exercising my own. Just because an instance becomes popular, that doesn’t magically take away the rights of the person running it to let people on or choose to, or not to, associate with some other group.
Federation is messy, and will have it’s share of bigots and power hungry users and owners, but your ‘freedom of speech’ means the government can’t limit your speech, not that everyone else has to enable it.
I do understand that it’s confusing because centralized platforms like Twitter and Reddit and Facebook have grown to the size and scope where they are nearly public utilities and have started approaching the level where freedom of speech may become a consideration(if they have a near monopoly and you are almost effectively silenced by a ban from those platforms) but federated instances are literally the opposite of that. Don’t like how an instance treats you? Join a different one or start your own. But consider each instance as a small club that can let you in or block you, that can join up with any other group that it wants… Not something that is obligated to vote on every decision, or obey the US ten commandments.
Just because you have the right to say something doesn’t mean I have to listen to it.
Just because you don’t want to listen you’re entitled to prevent others from listening.
We’re back at square 1.
That’s not square one, since ‘my group not joining group B’ isn’t preventing anyone in world from listening to group B, it’s just not helping people to listen to group B.
It may seem like an annoying distinction, but it’s basically the entire point of federation. Admittedly it’s confusing when coming from centralized platforms where banning you or your group really did basically equate to internal censorship… But I’m the world of federation, the concept of forcing one group to directly connect with another group is the ‘violation of rights’…declining to directly connect my group to yours is not a violation of anyone’s rights.
This, if nothing else, is a return to the Usenet days. If your shit was too wild, servers would just stop listing your channel.