6 ms·

Their first rule would block most of that and seems to make it pretty clear they don’t want to host those communities: > No bigotry - including racism, sexism,

by mcintyre1994 6y ago

Their first rule would block most of that and seems to make it pretty clear they don’t want to host those communities: > No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct. Code of conduct links to https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUC... Their rules are a lot stricter than Reddit’s. I’m not sure how that in practice works with it being federated, but assuming their rules are enforceable and enforced it looks like they’re just not interested in that content.

luckylion 6y ago
That sounds like it applies to contributing to the source, not to users of the software, or they really want to make sure that there are few "what programming language should I use" flame wars with rules like Respect that people have differences of opinion and that every design or implementation choice carries a trade-off and numerous costs. There is seldom a right answer.
- mcintyre1994 6y ago
  True, but the things about bigotry and harassment seem more likely to apply to the site, unless big projects get weirdly abusive issues or PRs. And it is linked from rule 1 on the website, I’m guessing the website rules isn’t referring to rules for contributing. I think maybe it’s both. I certainly don’t get the impression they want to be a Voat style ‘Reddit for after you’re banned’, regardless.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    I understood the general goal the same way. As for CoC: I believe it's more of a signalling act than a reaction to past issues. Just like the KKK would add "no race mixing" to the rules, a left wing open source project needs to signal to their in group, and their main way of doing that is to say "no harassment based on [some criteria]".
    - brnt 6y ago
      "No harassment" qualifies as left wing signalling now?
      - dx87 6y ago
        "No harassment based on certain criteria". The old FreeBSD code of conduct is a good example. Instead of having a blanket ban on harassment, it listed specific criteria that you couldn't harass someone about.
        brnt 6y ago
        You probably saw the brackets in the quote. I imagine those were added by the poster.
      - luckylion 6y ago
        Adding a code of conduct of that specific kind ("no being mean about weight" etc) not as a reaction to actual issues you've faced, but from the get go? Yeah, and it's a reliable signal as well. Inclusivity is one of the progressive core tenets.
        brnt 6y ago
        Inclusivity is core to democracy, and to call that progressive in 2020... Its just doing your due diligence in the face of software dev now being done by an ever diverse population. Any association will have house rules, often with very similar stipulations, and now software projects are doing the same, such that the wheel doesn't have to be reinvented.
        luckylion 6y ago
        No, it's really not. Democracy can function just fine without everybody being included everywhere. I don't have an issue with it if anyone finds inclusivity to be the most important issue, but it is a progressive policy, not "core to democracy". Please stop moralizing your personal political convictions. No, you're not a good person because of random political beliefs you happen to have, no, people who don't share those beliefs are not bad persons, and no, democracy does not rely on everyone sharing your beliefs.
esperent 6y ago
They lump porn (presumably also artistic nudity) along with hate speech, racism and so on as banned discourse. You're not even allowed to have a sexual alias. This is not necessarily a bad thing for users - I often wish for a place similar to hacker news but with a wider range of topics - however, it almost certainly means they will never reach Reddit levels of popularity. I do think that Reddit fills an important niche - a place where any topic is open for discussion, including porn and other forbidden topics like drugs. It's just unfortunate that the company currently ruling this niche is so morally bereft that they can't tell the difference between open discussion and fueling hate speech.
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  "difference between open discussion and fueling hate speech" Do you have a crystal clear definition then, on where is exactly the difference? I doubt there exists one.
  - TomSwirly 6y ago
    Yes, real world problems are hard. I'm not sure what point you're trying to convey though? We can't just say, "The boundaries of hate speech are unclear, so we'll do nothing and have uncensored speech." This experiment has been tried over and over again, with uniformly bad results.
    - hutzlibu 6y ago
      My point was, that it is hard and the lines are blurry. But actually I do believe in the concept of unrestricted speech. But I really don't know when was the last time, that was tried. There were times, when certain topics were ok to speak freely about, like racism, yes, but at those times other topics were restricted, so what exactly are you talking about?
      - thinkloop 6y ago
        > I do believe in the concept of unrestricted speech. Including illegal things?

luckylion 6y ago

That sounds like it applies to contributing to the source, not to users of the software, or they really want to make sure that there are few "what programming language should I use" flame wars with rules like Respect that people have differences of opinion and that every design or implementation choice carries a trade-off and numerous costs. There is seldom a right answer.

mcintyre1994 6y ago
True, but the things about bigotry and harassment seem more likely to apply to the site, unless big projects get weirdly abusive issues or PRs. And it is linked from rule 1 on the website, I’m guessing the website rules isn’t referring to rules for contributing. I think maybe it’s both. I certainly don’t get the impression they want to be a Voat style ‘Reddit for after you’re banned’, regardless.
- luckylion 6y ago
  I understood the general goal the same way. As for CoC: I believe it's more of a signalling act than a reaction to past issues. Just like the KKK would add "no race mixing" to the rules, a left wing open source project needs to signal to their in group, and their main way of doing that is to say "no harassment based on [some criteria]".
  - brnt 6y ago
    "No harassment" qualifies as left wing signalling now?
    - dx87 6y ago
      "No harassment based on certain criteria". The old FreeBSD code of conduct is a good example. Instead of having a blanket ban on harassment, it listed specific criteria that you couldn't harass someone about.
      - brnt 6y ago
        You probably saw the brackets in the quote. I imagine those were added by the poster.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      Adding a code of conduct of that specific kind ("no being mean about weight" etc) not as a reaction to actual issues you've faced, but from the get go? Yeah, and it's a reliable signal as well. Inclusivity is one of the progressive core tenets.
      - brnt 6y ago
        Inclusivity is core to democracy, and to call that progressive in 2020... Its just doing your due diligence in the face of software dev now being done by an ever diverse population. Any association will have house rules, often with very similar stipulations, and now software projects are doing the same, such that the wheel doesn't have to be reinvented.
        luckylion 6y ago
        No, it's really not. Democracy can function just fine without everybody being included everywhere. I don't have an issue with it if anyone finds inclusivity to be the most important issue, but it is a progressive policy, not "core to democracy". Please stop moralizing your personal political convictions. No, you're not a good person because of random political beliefs you happen to have, no, people who don't share those beliefs are not bad persons, and no, democracy does not rely on everyone sharing your beliefs.

esperent 6y ago

They lump porn (presumably also artistic nudity) along with hate speech, racism and so on as banned discourse. You're not even allowed to have a sexual alias. This is not necessarily a bad thing for users - I often wish for a place similar to hacker news but with a wider range of topics - however, it almost certainly means they will never reach Reddit levels of popularity. I do think that Reddit fills an important niche - a place where any topic is open for discussion, including porn and other forbidden topics like drugs. It's just unfortunate that the company currently ruling this niche is so morally bereft that they can't tell the difference between open discussion and fueling hate speech.

hutzlibu 6y ago
"difference between open discussion and fueling hate speech" Do you have a crystal clear definition then, on where is exactly the difference? I doubt there exists one.
- TomSwirly 6y ago
  Yes, real world problems are hard. I'm not sure what point you're trying to convey though? We can't just say, "The boundaries of hate speech are unclear, so we'll do nothing and have uncensored speech." This experiment has been tried over and over again, with uniformly bad results.
  - hutzlibu 6y ago
    My point was, that it is hard and the lines are blurry. But actually I do believe in the concept of unrestricted speech. But I really don't know when was the last time, that was tried. There were times, when certain topics were ok to speak freely about, like racism, yes, but at those times other topics were restricted, so what exactly are you talking about?
    - thinkloop 6y ago
      > I do believe in the concept of unrestricted speech. Including illegal things?