They repeat the same mistakes again and again by believing naïvely in free speech absoutism and the infamous marketplace of ideas. Malicious actors such as fascists exploit that and defend their actions with "free speech". No thought is given for shaping the community.
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2022
13 points (100.0% liked)
Chat
7499 readers
126 users here now
Relaxed section for discussion and debate that doesn't fit anywhere else. Whether it's advice, how your week is going, a link that's at the back of your mind, or something like that, it can likely go here.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes but that wouldn't be so bad. Unfortunately mostly innocent bystanders are doing the work for them. Afraid to be ostracized by the group they work to broaden existing rules and pretend that they are unjust because they limit "free speech".
The broader fediverse pretty much has this discussion 24/7. So many people saying that they "would rather use a server that has fewest rules, so that they can interact with the biggest part of it". But fewest rules isn't a measure of quality and applying this consequently would lead to no rules and basically no worthy content and protection of users. I am not saying that users have to be protected, they can choose whatever they want. But in reality people have certain expectations of social media, regarding content. So to make a nice space requires some effort.
My impression is that these people have the mental maturity of teenagers. They are used to mom cleaning up the house and get annoyed by the house-rules, but when they move out they are surprised that things get dirty when they are not regularly cleaning them.
I think your framing is a bit derogatory. I think it's better to take the situation as it is now and work with it. Different people have different expectations towards different media. Some people can't accept NSFW content on social media, some want to have very emotional and hard-handed discussions. I think both is fine.
It would be fine if that is what people actually wanted. But my impression is that most actually want a clean house or at least one they can still use at a reasonable state, but never so far realized that it takes effort and rules to have that and thus ignorantly say they don't want that if it inconveniences them. If they really wanted to have almost no rules, why aren't they on 4chan already (the equivalent of a monkey cage that gets flushed out with a water hose from time to time)?
Oh I see, I agree.
It's not just libertarians, it's extremists in any direction, really. Rules are about a sense of stability and safety in a community. This leads to two kinds of ideologies, both of which are often at play on some level.
The first ideology and in my opinion the most important one is an ideology which sets rules designed to protect the members of the community based on ideas which are shared across the entire community (or close enough to the entire community). Ideas like "don't kill people for no reason" are pretty universally human, protect human communities pretty well, and in general are not controversial. Other ideas such as protections for minority groups within a community may garner a bit more controversy from some, depending on how ostracized the minority groups are and how they contribute (or damage) the community. On the internet this manifests with rules which are pretty universally accepted such as no posting of child pornography
The second ideology is one of setting rules via populism or trending towards the average opinion. There are both good and bad rules which sit in this category and a lot of it depends on how the rule is framed or what it is intending to do. Rules which enforce social norms, such as "girls must wear dresses", tend to do a lot more harm than rules which might aim to protect well-accepted ideas which face some controversy but are not quite at the level of universal acceptance such as "gays and interracial couples can marry". These kind of rules on the internet typically resemble "free speech is protected" on the permissive end and "transphobia is not allowed" on the protective end.
However, as you mentioned, rules are not just what is explicitly written and codified. Rules are also reflective of how the community treats people. You don't need to have a law which says "no black people" in a rural community in America with deep-seated racist issues - this kind of behavior is simply reinforced by the peers in a community when they condone or condemn behavior they witness, by the conversations they have, and how they act around people from within and outside the community who push back against these unwritten rules. The core principle of Beehaw is formed around providing a framework which is designed to support the latter, with a focus on curating a community which represents a particular set of ideals designed to be protective and supportive, as it's a kind of community we haven't seen often online and a community which we wished to participate in.
Are you referring to Parler?
gab, 4chan, trump social, everywhere. They all have a lot of rules that you have to follow. Of course they have, because why else would someone make a social space. A social space without rules will just develop their own rules.
A social space without rules will just develop their own rules.
Anarchy in a nutshell. And I mean that in the most positive way.
That's probably how all societies were formed. First no rules, then some rules, and eventually rules designed to upkeep the system of rules. Time passes and soon people don't know why some part of the rules even exist, but they're probably important so let's keep them.
Anarchy is easy to reach. How to keep it there, though -- assuming it's a desirable state.
Time passes and soon people don’t know why some part of the rules even exist, but they’re probably important so let’s keep them.
The technical debt of rules. Maybe you remove one law and you accidentally allowed mob lynchings again?
Wolfballs