this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
315 points (92.2% liked)

Reddit

17633 readers
107 users here now

News and Discussions about Reddit

Welcome to !reddit. This is a community for all news and discussions about Reddit.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules


Rule 1- No brigading.

**You may not encourage brigading any communities or subreddits in any way. **

YSKs are about self-improvement on how to do things.



Rule 2- No illegal or NSFW or gore content.

**No illegal or NSFW or gore content. **



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-Reddit posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



:::spoiler Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

So I mean, most of us knew this beforehand and being on the fediverse we probably do not really care, but what was always on the horizon has no happened, the owner of Squabblr finally had enough having to be a decent person and has decided that his site is now "free speech purism", so he gets to continue to insult LGBTQ people like he always does.

Seems from the comments that some other admins disagreed with the decision (so there were some decent people on that site!) and either left or were removed.

Not entirely surprising the whole thing, granted.

(edit)
Also, apologies as this isn't truly reddit news but Squabblr was one of the sites frequently brought up in /r/redditalternatives so I figured this might still be relevant?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Pat@kbin.run 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

IMO if sites want to take a "free speech" approach without allowing bigots, maybe they should adopt the Canadian law. We don't have free speech, we have what's known as "freedom of expression". Essentially, we can say whatever unless it's hate speech or bigoted.

Yeah, Canada has censorship, but it's essentially just to censor racist idiots and homophobic fools.

[–] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

A way to improve it further is to see freedom of speech as quantitative, try to maximise it for all parties involved, and look at the consequences of banning a certain discourse or not.

Using hate speech as an example:

  • if you forbid it, you're lowering a bit the freedom of speech of those who'd otherwise voice it. It's only a bit because they're still allowed to voice non-hateful discourses there.
  • if you allow it, you're lowering a lot the freedom of speech of those who'd be targeted by it. It's a lot because they'll disengage and leave.

So by banning hate speech you're actually increasing the overall freedom of speech, even if reducing it a bit for a certain audience.

The same reasoning applies towards other situations. Like "that fucking user" doing the online equivalent of megaphoning so nobody else is heard; misplaced porn, gore, or other things that a lot of people would rather not see; harassment (it is performative speech, and yet you need to prevent it).

I feel like this covers what you've linked about freedom of expression in Canada, but it's a bit more practical and flexible to adapt into online communities.

Also, it's important to take into account that there's a hierarchy between discourses, when trying to maximise freedom of speech: descriptive > prescriptive > performative.

[–] MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

if you allow it, you’re lowering a lot the freedom of speech of those who’d be targeted by it. It’s a lot because they’ll disengage and leave

I disagree that this is lowering free speech. Those people who leave are still entirely within their ability to stay and continue speaking. Free speech isn't lesser just because someone doesn't feel like speaking

[–] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem with this reasoning is that it could be used to justify banning any speech (not just hate speech) and still claim "we're banning it but ackshyually we aren't reducing your free speech. You're still able to say it, it's just that you don't like the consequences of saying it here." Because even people under the worst dictatorships out there are still able to voice censored discourses.

Instead of looking at the ability of the individuals, IMO it's better to look at the effects in the social environment. Hate speech targetted at a group effectively makes them leave and/or stop speaking. As a result, the discourses that they were voicing get silenced with them, and the social acceptability to voice those discourses goes down. The environment in question becomes less free as a result.

This might sound like abstract "WORDS WORDS WORDS", but IMO it has a bunch of desirable consequences:

  • It avoids the special pleading claim that "hate speech isn't speech", while still allowing you to ban it under certain circumstances.
  • There's less room to misuse the ban against hate speech towards legitimate/non-hateful discourses. Specially when you get environments infested with witch hunters, that sometimes are as bad as the witches that they claim to hunt.
  • It gives you grounds to get rid of specially stupid, noisy, obnoxious or obtuse users, regardless of what they say, provided that their presence shuts other users up.
  • It's flexible enough to address even a 4chan-like "mods? what mods?" approach or a Beehaw-like "be nice or get out" one, because it forces you to take the userbase into account.
  • You don't need to deal with blackbox concepts like "feelings" and "intentions" and the likes.
[–] MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hate speech targetted at a group effectively makes them leave and/or stop speaking. As a result, the discourses that they were voicing get silenced with them, and the social acceptability to voice those discourses goes down. The environment in question becomes less free as a result.

This is where I don't agree. Hate speech doesn't make anyone leave. It has no power nor authority over people to make them do anything. No matter how much someone spams "kill all niggers", it doesn't actually do anything. If someone leaves, it's entirely because they aren't personally interested in being there. This is in contrast to censorship from the platform, where there is the ability to unilaterally force a user to not participate via bans or removals.

It's the same idea as how free speech applies to the government not censoring the town square. Someone leaving because they don't enjoy what people say is not an infringement on anyone's speech, but the government arresting people based on what they say is.

Just not censoring people offers nearly all the benefits you claim your perspective offers.you don't have to worry about misuse of censorship because it isn't used at all, and it is entirely devoid of "feeling" and "intent", and the other things like ability to an undesirable speech isn't particularly relevant when discussing a free speech platform.

[–] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

This is where I don’t agree. Hate speech doesn’t make anyone leave.

You're moving the goalposts from "it doesn't hamper your ability" to "people don't leave", Reddit style. And you still placed the goalposts where you won't score.

If you want to know how stupid your claim (that boils down to "I dun unrurrstand! Speach don't do nothing!") sounds like, you don't need even:

No, you don't need those things. A tiny bit of reasoning should be enough to show that, if you shit constantly on the groups that a person belongs to, the person will eventually leave or shut up.

Speech has power over people, regardless of authority, no matter how much you pretend that it doesn't - it makes people do things, it makes people not do things. This is fucking obvious for anyone with a functional brain dammit.

If you want to continue this conversation, then show a bit more depth of thought than you're doing currently. Otherwise, I won't waste my time further, OK?