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!

  • HasturOPMEnglish
    32·
    1 year ago

    Defederation is a fancy term for shunning. Which is an appropriate response when a community fails to regulate it’s speech.

    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.

    Differnent communities will have different standards based on but not limited to local social mores, geographical region, language and probably a lot more.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    • kamenokoEnglish
      6·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • HasturOPMEnglish
        21·
        1 year ago

        You seem like good people.

        There goes my reputation. /s

        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.

        Thanks, I’ll have a read later. Bookmarked.

        I’ve been analyzing the problem informally since about 1996 when I first logged into an IRC channel and got banned for trolling.

        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 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.

        I don’t know if I’ve gotten better, I want to believe that’s the case but I keep trying.

        • kamenokoEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          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 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 don’t know if I’ve gotten better, I want to believe that’s the case but I keep trying.

          I worry about the ones who have stopped trying because they are relentless, loud, and oftentimes way off the mark.