3 ms·

Nazis, fascists, and white supremacists already have a safe space that nobody seems to care about knocking offline. It's called Stormfront, and it's not Mozilla

Nazis, fascists, and white supremacists already have a safe space that nobody seems to care about knocking offline. It's called Stormfront, and it's not Mozilla's fault if a web forum running since the 1990s isn't good enough for ignorant hitlerjugend who mistake corporate-owned social media platforms like Facebook or Twitter for "the internet".

djsumdog 6y ago
Mozilla has recently published an article on the "decentralized web of hate." As a long time fediverse user I found the article appalling. Who decides what "hate speech" is? You realize 100 years ago, speech advocating for homosexuals would be considered deeply offensive, deplorable and unsafe, right? At least in the US, the law is very specific about speech: direct calls to violence are banned, and should be. But now we have Big Tech, Mozilla and others, tells us what is and isn't hate speech. You say "Nazis" and "fascists" but it's just a stand-in now for anything and everything you disagree with. It's all Nazi Nazi Nazi and it has no real meaning. When you ban speech, when you dictate what language people are and aren't allowed to use, you control though. We are literally talking about though policing here. Distributed social networks help prevent though crime and Mozilla opposed them in ways that feel more fascistic than anything they're claiming the "Fascists" are doing.
- demifiend 6y ago
  > Who decides what "hate speech" is? From an authoritarian viewpoint, all speech is hate speech. Left-wingers are fine with "all cops are bastards" and "eat the rich", but $DEITY forbid you suggest that trans women aren't women or that people might decide that gay sex is more fun once they've tried it instead of being born that way. Conversely, right-wingers have no trouble suggesting that anybody who has a penis is a man regardless of whether trans and intersex people find this hurtful, but $DEITY help you if you dare suggest that capitalism is overrated or that Christianity is a crock, or that maybe that Eisenhower guy was right about the military-industrial-congressional complex. The Fediverse doesn't fix this. All it does is let instance operators set up their own little fiefdoms and federate with allied fiefdoms (instances with similar opinions on what constitutes "hate speech") and blacklist dissenters or instances run by people they find offensive. If this doesn't bother you, that's OK, but let's not pretend that many of the people on Fedi aren't people who couldn't hack it on Twitter, but couldn't let go so they decided to make their own Twitter with blackjack and hookers.
  - rocqua 6y ago
    If we are going down a path of moderating based on 'truth' we are editorializing. This is good, but we need a way to pick who does this for us, and a way to see what others think is truth. I think a fediverse is a great way to achieve this. Much better than Twitter containing most of the mainstream and anything else being relegated to 'free speech' places that get overrun by unacceptable content.
    - djsumdog 6y ago
      > This is good, but we need a way to pick who does this for us, No, no no. I'm not too stupid to think for myself. I don't want anyone 'thinking' for anyone else. It is the mark of a truth authoritarian when you embrace other people thinking for you. The biggest problem with social media is that they ARE editorializing every single person's post by choosing where it appears in the list or by placing a little blue disputed badge on it or locking out an account if someone has conflicting opinions. I don't want you, or anyone else, picking what the truth is. What you are describe is literally enforcing Thoughtcrime.
      - rocqua 6y ago
        What I am describing is how news-papers used to work. Every news paper has a different perspective, and we had a choice in which editors we listened to. With social media we do not. I want choice back, and I want to keep that choice from being a walled garden. I am not looking for someone to tell me the Truth with a capital T. I am looking for many people to tell me their truth, with a small 't'. And if someone's truth is obviously false to me, and they happen to moderate a big social media platform, then I want a way out. Note, I have never had a problem with online moderators. I am not asking to get around bans I already have. In fact I think we agree on a basic principle. We cannot trust a single entity to determine the truth. Issue is, with current forms of moderation, a few parties (Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Credit-cards) can easily decide to shut someone down. I think that power should be way more diffuse.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >Mozilla opposed them in ways that feel more fascistic than anything they're claiming the "Fascists" are doing Mozilla is still in favor of distributed social networks, but are aware that it can allow hateful groups to incite violence, an undesirable result. Nothing in that article supports banning any speech, or has Mozilla deciding what is or isn't acceptable.
BlueTemplar 6y ago
Also, there's always the "Dark Web" (Tor & Freenet ?). I haven't been on Freenet for more than a decade, I hear these days websites there have 'warnings' like "This website does NOT contain child pornography" ?

djsumdog 6y ago

Mozilla has recently published an article on the "decentralized web of hate." As a long time fediverse user I found the article appalling. Who decides what "hate speech" is? You realize 100 years ago, speech advocating for homosexuals would be considered deeply offensive, deplorable and unsafe, right? At least in the US, the law is very specific about speech: direct calls to violence are banned, and should be. But now we have Big Tech, Mozilla and others, tells us what is and isn't hate speech. You say "Nazis" and "fascists" but it's just a stand-in now for anything and everything you disagree with. It's all Nazi Nazi Nazi and it has no real meaning. When you ban speech, when you dictate what language people are and aren't allowed to use, you control though. We are literally talking about though policing here. Distributed social networks help prevent though crime and Mozilla opposed them in ways that feel more fascistic than anything they're claiming the "Fascists" are doing.

demifiend 6y ago
> Who decides what "hate speech" is? From an authoritarian viewpoint, all speech is hate speech. Left-wingers are fine with "all cops are bastards" and "eat the rich", but $DEITY forbid you suggest that trans women aren't women or that people might decide that gay sex is more fun once they've tried it instead of being born that way. Conversely, right-wingers have no trouble suggesting that anybody who has a penis is a man regardless of whether trans and intersex people find this hurtful, but $DEITY help you if you dare suggest that capitalism is overrated or that Christianity is a crock, or that maybe that Eisenhower guy was right about the military-industrial-congressional complex. The Fediverse doesn't fix this. All it does is let instance operators set up their own little fiefdoms and federate with allied fiefdoms (instances with similar opinions on what constitutes "hate speech") and blacklist dissenters or instances run by people they find offensive. If this doesn't bother you, that's OK, but let's not pretend that many of the people on Fedi aren't people who couldn't hack it on Twitter, but couldn't let go so they decided to make their own Twitter with blackjack and hookers.
- rocqua 6y ago
  If we are going down a path of moderating based on 'truth' we are editorializing. This is good, but we need a way to pick who does this for us, and a way to see what others think is truth. I think a fediverse is a great way to achieve this. Much better than Twitter containing most of the mainstream and anything else being relegated to 'free speech' places that get overrun by unacceptable content.
  - djsumdog 6y ago
    > This is good, but we need a way to pick who does this for us, No, no no. I'm not too stupid to think for myself. I don't want anyone 'thinking' for anyone else. It is the mark of a truth authoritarian when you embrace other people thinking for you. The biggest problem with social media is that they ARE editorializing every single person's post by choosing where it appears in the list or by placing a little blue disputed badge on it or locking out an account if someone has conflicting opinions. I don't want you, or anyone else, picking what the truth is. What you are describe is literally enforcing Thoughtcrime.
    - rocqua 6y ago
      What I am describing is how news-papers used to work. Every news paper has a different perspective, and we had a choice in which editors we listened to. With social media we do not. I want choice back, and I want to keep that choice from being a walled garden. I am not looking for someone to tell me the Truth with a capital T. I am looking for many people to tell me their truth, with a small 't'. And if someone's truth is obviously false to me, and they happen to moderate a big social media platform, then I want a way out. Note, I have never had a problem with online moderators. I am not asking to get around bans I already have. In fact I think we agree on a basic principle. We cannot trust a single entity to determine the truth. Issue is, with current forms of moderation, a few parties (Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Credit-cards) can easily decide to shut someone down. I think that power should be way more diffuse.
boomboomsubban 6y ago
>Mozilla opposed them in ways that feel more fascistic than anything they're claiming the "Fascists" are doing Mozilla is still in favor of distributed social networks, but are aware that it can allow hateful groups to incite violence, an undesirable result. Nothing in that article supports banning any speech, or has Mozilla deciding what is or isn't acceptable.

BlueTemplar 6y ago

Also, there's always the "Dark Web" (Tor & Freenet ?). I haven't been on Freenet for more than a decade, I hear these days websites there have 'warnings' like "This website does NOT contain child pornography" ?