3 ms·

This seems to be the outcome of all of these Reddit clones, even the ones made with the best of intentions. Take for instance Ruqqus, another site created as a

by badRNG 6y ago

This seems to be the outcome of all of these Reddit clones, even the ones made with the best of intentions. Take for instance Ruqqus, another site created as a free speech reddit alternative. It consistently has horrifying content on the front page regularly; viciously racist content, anti-Semitic memes, unironic pro-Nazism/pro-genocide discussion posts, and generally terrible content. This is likely because it is exactly this content that is being "censored" from Reddit, not these harmless free speech advocates who are silenced by a big company. Can anyone actually tell me what valuable discussion is being censored on Twitter, Reddit, etc? Banning this type of content is mandatory if you want a platform that is safe and available for trans people, Jews, gay people, women, etc. People shouldn't have to tolerate people @ing them with slurs, be exposed to "reasoned" arguments for their extermination, or memes dehumanizing them for the sake of "free speech."

detaro 6y ago
Why do you assume that all alternatives have to be "free speech = allowing abuse" alternatives? E.g. a large subset of Fediverse (Mastodon etc) communities are communities that avoid Twitter because they don't feel Twitter is doing enough to be safe for them. And instances have a varying policies about how they handle instances with different moderation standards.
- kiba 6y ago
  All good alternatives will have rule, thus moderation. Where does the line between "free speech" and moderation exists?
  - xupybd 6y ago
    The problem is access to platforms. We haven't found a good way to do this. People should be free to opt in or out of the content they want. What offends one will not offend another. For example a thread on hunting will offend some who love the animals they hunt. There is no universal right or wrong there. On should have access to an online community the other should have the ability to disagree or avoid that community. The problem is when an organisation like Twitter picks a side that free speech becomes an issue. Only because of the monopolistic nature of the platform. But that's what makes the platform good, everyone is there.
- badRNG 6y ago
  When free speech on the internet is discussed, it is within the context of freedom from excessive moderation on a platform. To call a Fediverse a "platform" doesn't seem quite analogous, these communities are more like their own platforms that are far more intensely moderated than even Twitter or Reddit. Free speech advocates who aren't convinced by the "just go to another platform" argument in a discussion about Reddit or Twitter censorship likely won't think the argument is worth accepting simply by redefining what a platform is.
  - detaro 6y ago
    And what stops a network of lemmy instances from being that more intensely moderated Reddit alternatives? That's my point: just because other reddit alternatives have branded themselves as "free speech" doesn't mean all of them have to. And federated platforms might make that easier than one-offs.
Miner49er 6y ago
raddle.me is a reddit alternative created by lefists after being banned on Reddit. It hasn't been taken over by the far right.
- badRNG 6y ago
  I'd argue that raddle is far more intensely moderated than Twitter or Reddit, probably more so than most subreddits. I may not have done a good job of illustrating it in the previous post, but the example was mainly focused on platforms that bill themselves as an anti-censorship alternative to Reddit. Censorship and free speech on social media are incredibly complex topics, and the development of an endless stream of tiny, far right echo chambers doesn't seem to capture the spirit of this "town square" that free speech advocates are looking for.
snapetom 6y ago
Ruqqus is nowhere near as bad as voat is. Moreover, in threads, they are well aware of what happened to voat. They know they have to walk a line between free and open speech and not devolving into a haven for nazis and racists. However, the best way to help them is for more sane users to participate in that community.

by badRNG 6y ago

detaro 6y ago

Why do you assume that all alternatives have to be "free speech = allowing abuse" alternatives? E.g. a large subset of Fediverse (Mastodon etc) communities are communities that avoid Twitter because they don't feel Twitter is doing enough to be safe for them. And instances have a varying policies about how they handle instances with different moderation standards.

kiba 6y ago
All good alternatives will have rule, thus moderation. Where does the line between "free speech" and moderation exists?
- xupybd 6y ago
  The problem is access to platforms. We haven't found a good way to do this. People should be free to opt in or out of the content they want. What offends one will not offend another. For example a thread on hunting will offend some who love the animals they hunt. There is no universal right or wrong there. On should have access to an online community the other should have the ability to disagree or avoid that community. The problem is when an organisation like Twitter picks a side that free speech becomes an issue. Only because of the monopolistic nature of the platform. But that's what makes the platform good, everyone is there.
badRNG 6y ago
When free speech on the internet is discussed, it is within the context of freedom from excessive moderation on a platform. To call a Fediverse a "platform" doesn't seem quite analogous, these communities are more like their own platforms that are far more intensely moderated than even Twitter or Reddit. Free speech advocates who aren't convinced by the "just go to another platform" argument in a discussion about Reddit or Twitter censorship likely won't think the argument is worth accepting simply by redefining what a platform is.
- detaro 6y ago
  And what stops a network of lemmy instances from being that more intensely moderated Reddit alternatives? That's my point: just because other reddit alternatives have branded themselves as "free speech" doesn't mean all of them have to. And federated platforms might make that easier than one-offs.

Miner49er 6y ago

raddle.me is a reddit alternative created by lefists after being banned on Reddit. It hasn't been taken over by the far right.

badRNG 6y ago
I'd argue that raddle is far more intensely moderated than Twitter or Reddit, probably more so than most subreddits. I may not have done a good job of illustrating it in the previous post, but the example was mainly focused on platforms that bill themselves as an anti-censorship alternative to Reddit. Censorship and free speech on social media are incredibly complex topics, and the development of an endless stream of tiny, far right echo chambers doesn't seem to capture the spirit of this "town square" that free speech advocates are looking for.

snapetom 6y ago

Ruqqus is nowhere near as bad as voat is. Moreover, in threads, they are well aware of what happened to voat. They know they have to walk a line between free and open speech and not devolving into a haven for nazis and racists. However, the best way to help them is for more sane users to participate in that community.