5 ms·

Every time someone sets out to create a completely unmoderated free speech platform, it immediately becomes an object lesson in why people moderate platforms.

inawarminister 7y ago
That's because the first adopters of an unmoderated platforms are those who were kicked out from the moderated platforms, whether rightfully or wrongly. Indeed, many settlements in the yesteryears were founded by outlaws and dissidents (also see: the Pilgrims and Mormon settlement of Utah)
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  So what does it say that unmoderated platforms always seem to become sinkholes of bigotry? Or are you saying that, like the Pilgrims, they will eventually transmute themselves into something less unpleasant if left alone? That's stretching the metaphor a bit far, I think.
  - zzzcpan 7y ago
    > So what does it say that unmoderated platforms always seem to become sinkholes of bigotry? They don't become that. Or rather this is orthogonal to moderation.
    - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
      Voat and Gab seem to have done. Which ones haven't? The way it seems to work is that unmoderated forums attract the toxic bigots that aren't allowed to speak their minds elsewhere, and they attack anyone who disagrees with them until most of those people get tired of it and go elsewhere, leaving the forum to the jerks. (Or else the owners have second thoughts and start moderating.) It happens to any unmoderated forum that gets large and popular enough.
      - zzzcpan 7y ago
        But bigots are allowed to speak their minds elsewhere, in many many places, especially in private, hidden from people who don't like them. They don't naturally gravitate to any place that lets them spread their ideas. What I've seen happens is different, no actual genuine bigotry, but some organized effort to spread hateful propaganda and moderators not banning any of that, taking sides, especially when the organized effort comes from the government and is supported by mainstream government propaganda, so the moderators are naturally conflicted. Owners, moderators sometimes realize it's hurting the site, but still don't like to compromise on their views and eventually ban entire topics, not hate, personal attacks or anything like that and still being soft to the views they share even if they are against new rules.
        PhasmaFelis 7y ago
        > They don't naturally gravitate to any place that lets them spread their ideas. Why wouldn't they? Everyone else does, you and me included. Voat was a tiny site of 30,000 users in April 2015. Two months later, Reddit banned r/ShitN*ggersSay, and Voat's user base exploded. That was four years ago. Go take a look at the front page of https://voat.co/ https://voat.co/ right now. Don't do it at work, though.
balaksakrionon 7y ago
Why do you think it's unmoderated? I saw this same statement in another comment and pulled up their guidelines: https://gab.com/about/guidelines https://gab.com/about/guidelines. Essentially they aim to moderate according to US law
- krapp 7y ago
  I guess Gab doesn't really support free speech after all...
  - balaksakrionon 7y ago
    Not sure exactly what you mean by this
    - krapp 7y ago
      They censor speech in order to conform to US law, which means they don't support free speech. They cannot as a platform both support free speech and practice censorship.
      - antepodius 7y ago
        Speech there is free-er than on twitter.
        krapp 7y ago
        Which is odd, because in every other instance with every other platform, any censorship no matter how benign is denounced as a slippery slope towards an inevitable and irreversible Orwellian nightmare dystopia. I guess Gab is the exception to the rule for some reason.
        CompanionCuuube 7y ago
        Was that censorship in order to conform to US law? If not, sorry but you're comparing apples to oranges.

inawarminister 7y ago

That's because the first adopters of an unmoderated platforms are those who were kicked out from the moderated platforms, whether rightfully or wrongly. Indeed, many settlements in the yesteryears were founded by outlaws and dissidents (also see: the Pilgrims and Mormon settlement of Utah)

PhasmaFelis 7y ago
So what does it say that unmoderated platforms always seem to become sinkholes of bigotry? Or are you saying that, like the Pilgrims, they will eventually transmute themselves into something less unpleasant if left alone? That's stretching the metaphor a bit far, I think.
- zzzcpan 7y ago
  > So what does it say that unmoderated platforms always seem to become sinkholes of bigotry? They don't become that. Or rather this is orthogonal to moderation.
  - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
    Voat and Gab seem to have done. Which ones haven't? The way it seems to work is that unmoderated forums attract the toxic bigots that aren't allowed to speak their minds elsewhere, and they attack anyone who disagrees with them until most of those people get tired of it and go elsewhere, leaving the forum to the jerks. (Or else the owners have second thoughts and start moderating.) It happens to any unmoderated forum that gets large and popular enough.
    - zzzcpan 7y ago
      But bigots are allowed to speak their minds elsewhere, in many many places, especially in private, hidden from people who don't like them. They don't naturally gravitate to any place that lets them spread their ideas. What I've seen happens is different, no actual genuine bigotry, but some organized effort to spread hateful propaganda and moderators not banning any of that, taking sides, especially when the organized effort comes from the government and is supported by mainstream government propaganda, so the moderators are naturally conflicted. Owners, moderators sometimes realize it's hurting the site, but still don't like to compromise on their views and eventually ban entire topics, not hate, personal attacks or anything like that and still being soft to the views they share even if they are against new rules.
      - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
        > They don't naturally gravitate to any place that lets them spread their ideas. Why wouldn't they? Everyone else does, you and me included. Voat was a tiny site of 30,000 users in April 2015. Two months later, Reddit banned r/ShitN*ggersSay, and Voat's user base exploded. That was four years ago. Go take a look at the front page of https://voat.co/ https://voat.co/ right now. Don't do it at work, though.

balaksakrionon 7y ago

Why do you think it's unmoderated? I saw this same statement in another comment and pulled up their guidelines: https://gab.com/about/guidelines https://gab.com/about/guidelines. Essentially they aim to moderate according to US law

krapp 7y ago
I guess Gab doesn't really support free speech after all...
- balaksakrionon 7y ago
  Not sure exactly what you mean by this
  - krapp 7y ago
    They censor speech in order to conform to US law, which means they don't support free speech. They cannot as a platform both support free speech and practice censorship.
    - antepodius 7y ago
      Speech there is free-er than on twitter.
      - krapp 7y ago
        Which is odd, because in every other instance with every other platform, any censorship no matter how benign is denounced as a slippery slope towards an inevitable and irreversible Orwellian nightmare dystopia. I guess Gab is the exception to the rule for some reason.
        CompanionCuuube 7y ago
        Was that censorship in order to conform to US law? If not, sorry but you're comparing apples to oranges.