5 ms·

I will probably try this, out since Reddit seems unwilling to address corruption in its management. Wondering how free speech issues will play out here.

cortesoft 10y ago
Did you even read the article? They are explicitly saying that they will (and do) ban bullying and hateful communities. They are not free speech absolutists.
- threepipeproblm 10y ago
  I probably didn't express my view well here. I did read the article & understand they aren't free speech absolutists. Still wondering how free speech will play out here, because I wonder if they will stick to eliminating trolls or if their moderation will be subjective and "politicized".
  - jsf666 10y ago
    There's no free speech if you want to ban "hate speech" or "trolling". This more or less means removing all challenging opinions and basically focus on being an echo chamber even more so than reddit. Basically thought-crime policing
    - threepipeproblm 10y ago
      I think it can be easy to differentiate name calling and trolling from actual discourse. I say this, based on past participation in a local political forum that did allow a wide variety of viewpoints... including viewpoints that were banned on the forum that spawned us. It seems to me that many sites who have censored particular viewpoints point to hate speech and trolling inappropriately. It also seems like people here do not have high expectations for Imzy, in this way. I have more or less given up on online political forums, and these issues seem to come up less for hobby/tech topics.
    - SolaceQuantum 10y ago
      How is preventing racism and slurs a thought crime policing? You're free to think all the dehumanizations of all the demographics you like. Many sites are available for you to even express them. You just are not allowed to do it at imzy. No different than say, not shouting slurs at black people in a cafe. That's not a thought crime issue, that's a "stop pushing out demographics out" issue.
    - cortesoft 10y ago
      While I understand it is tricky to properly moderate a forum without stifling dissenting opinions, it isn't impossible. You can censor clear, vulgar, abuse while not censoring challenging opinions. Trolling, name calling, and abuse are NOT "challenging opinions", and removing them does not stifle discourse. There is no opinion that can't be expressed in a way that doesn't resort to abuse.
    - rmc 10y ago
      > This more or less means removing all challenging opinions and basically focus on being an echo chamber even more so than reddit. Basically thought-crime policing If you think left groups never disagree with each other, you're sadly misinformed. Left wing groups are famous for splitting over disagreements. Don't you remember the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea?
  - cortesoft 10y ago
    Probably depends on how you define politicized. Take the example of /r/fatpeoplehate... some people think banning it was simply eliminating trolls and abuse, while some people think it was SJW left-wing censorship.
MK999 10y ago
free speech is moving to voat and gab this site is not advertising itself as a free speech zone more like a polite speech zone
- threepipeproblm 10y ago
  I heard about Voat recently when expressing unhappiness with Reddit. Will probably be checking it out, also... I am not that interested in the political discussion though, and on a first look it wasn't clear if Voat had much going on with techie/hobby type things. To me I think free speech is important as a political right, but these are private sites, and it's not clear to me 100% free speech is useful. I am more interested in good, ethical management. If people are going to be banned for being jerks, especially across communities, it's not necessarily a deal breaker for me. When it amounts to filtering out particular viewpoints, I'd leave.
  - MK999 10y ago
    Voat seems to be geared toward the stuff that got banned or reddit. Gab.ai is people who got banned on twitter. I don't see any reason to look for tech stuff there.
- krapp 10y ago
  Voat does not really support free speech, as per their user agreement: You may not use Voat to break the law, violate an individual's privacy, or infringe any person or entity’s intellectual property or any other proprietary rights. (...) You agree to not post anyone's sensitive personal information that relates to that person's real world or online identity. Do Not Incite Harm: You agree not to encourage harm against people. Protect Kids: You agree not to post any child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors. No site which recognizes the authority of laws prohibiting content or expression of any kind truly supports free speech. When most people say free speech it seems what they really mean is a degree of censorship that doesn't interfere with them personally.
  - bpicolo 10y ago
toggafgnadx 10y ago
Look at the pic of the founders hugging plush toys, I'm sure you can imagine it.

cortesoft 10y ago

Did you even read the article? They are explicitly saying that they will (and do) ban bullying and hateful communities. They are not free speech absolutists.

threepipeproblm 10y ago
I probably didn't express my view well here. I did read the article & understand they aren't free speech absolutists. Still wondering how free speech will play out here, because I wonder if they will stick to eliminating trolls or if their moderation will be subjective and "politicized".
- jsf666 10y ago
  There's no free speech if you want to ban "hate speech" or "trolling". This more or less means removing all challenging opinions and basically focus on being an echo chamber even more so than reddit. Basically thought-crime policing
  - threepipeproblm 10y ago
    I think it can be easy to differentiate name calling and trolling from actual discourse. I say this, based on past participation in a local political forum that did allow a wide variety of viewpoints... including viewpoints that were banned on the forum that spawned us. It seems to me that many sites who have censored particular viewpoints point to hate speech and trolling inappropriately. It also seems like people here do not have high expectations for Imzy, in this way. I have more or less given up on online political forums, and these issues seem to come up less for hobby/tech topics.
  - SolaceQuantum 10y ago
    How is preventing racism and slurs a thought crime policing? You're free to think all the dehumanizations of all the demographics you like. Many sites are available for you to even express them. You just are not allowed to do it at imzy. No different than say, not shouting slurs at black people in a cafe. That's not a thought crime issue, that's a "stop pushing out demographics out" issue.
  - cortesoft 10y ago
    While I understand it is tricky to properly moderate a forum without stifling dissenting opinions, it isn't impossible. You can censor clear, vulgar, abuse while not censoring challenging opinions. Trolling, name calling, and abuse are NOT "challenging opinions", and removing them does not stifle discourse. There is no opinion that can't be expressed in a way that doesn't resort to abuse.
  - rmc 10y ago
    > This more or less means removing all challenging opinions and basically focus on being an echo chamber even more so than reddit. Basically thought-crime policing If you think left groups never disagree with each other, you're sadly misinformed. Left wing groups are famous for splitting over disagreements. Don't you remember the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea?
- cortesoft 10y ago
  Probably depends on how you define politicized. Take the example of /r/fatpeoplehate... some people think banning it was simply eliminating trolls and abuse, while some people think it was SJW left-wing censorship.

MK999 10y ago

free speech is moving to voat and gab this site is not advertising itself as a free speech zone more like a polite speech zone

threepipeproblm 10y ago
I heard about Voat recently when expressing unhappiness with Reddit. Will probably be checking it out, also... I am not that interested in the political discussion though, and on a first look it wasn't clear if Voat had much going on with techie/hobby type things. To me I think free speech is important as a political right, but these are private sites, and it's not clear to me 100% free speech is useful. I am more interested in good, ethical management. If people are going to be banned for being jerks, especially across communities, it's not necessarily a deal breaker for me. When it amounts to filtering out particular viewpoints, I'd leave.
- MK999 10y ago
  Voat seems to be geared toward the stuff that got banned or reddit. Gab.ai is people who got banned on twitter. I don't see any reason to look for tech stuff there.
krapp 10y ago
Voat does not really support free speech, as per their user agreement: You may not use Voat to break the law, violate an individual's privacy, or infringe any person or entity’s intellectual property or any other proprietary rights. (...) You agree to not post anyone's sensitive personal information that relates to that person's real world or online identity. Do Not Incite Harm: You agree not to encourage harm against people. Protect Kids: You agree not to post any child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors. No site which recognizes the authority of laws prohibiting content or expression of any kind truly supports free speech. When most people say free speech it seems what they really mean is a degree of censorship that doesn't interfere with them personally.
- bpicolo 10y ago

toggafgnadx 10y ago

Look at the pic of the founders hugging plush toys, I'm sure you can imagine it.