4 ms·

There's subtext here, right? Is this related to Gab and the rest? From their earlier post about Fediverse: >Some parties in the Fediverse demand “self-censorsh

There's subtext here, right? Is this related to Gab and the rest? From their earlier post about Fediverse: >Some parties in the Fediverse demand “self-censorship.” Especially when we talk about particular services or products, individuals contact us and demand that we delete our posts. “We shouldn’t talk about the topic,” so other people don’t start to use these “evil” services and products. In our opinion, such demands contradict the claim of being an “open-minded community.”

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kstrauser 6y ago
I’m not sure, but even if not I still feel like that’s a silly complaint. Party A says something on the Internet that offends party B. Party B says something on the Internet that offends party A. Party A complains that they’re being asked to self-censor. I see it as both parties using the service as designed to speak their minds. Party A also has the tools to mute Party B if they don’t like what they have to say.
- curtainsforus 6y ago
  I mean, it's Party A says something on the Internet that offends party B. Party B asks party A to self-censor/tells them to shut up, which offends party A. Party A complains that they’re being asked to self-censor. When party B is asking A to self-censor, there's nothing wrong with A complaining about what B is saying. If A's lying or being dishonest, oh well.
  - kstrauser 6y ago
    I do get that, but really, B doesn’t have any special sway. They’re just some randos saying that they don’t like A’s posting. While annoying, that’s going to happen on every social network. If I went on Gab and started posting a lot of pro-Biden content, I’m certain plenty of people would tell me to knock it off. So sure, it’s alright for A to be annoyed by it. That’s definitely not a unique feature of the fediverse, though.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

kstrauser 6y ago

I’m not sure, but even if not I still feel like that’s a silly complaint. Party A says something on the Internet that offends party B. Party B says something on the Internet that offends party A. Party A complains that they’re being asked to self-censor. I see it as both parties using the service as designed to speak their minds. Party A also has the tools to mute Party B if they don’t like what they have to say.

curtainsforus 6y ago
I mean, it's Party A says something on the Internet that offends party B. Party B asks party A to self-censor/tells them to shut up, which offends party A. Party A complains that they’re being asked to self-censor. When party B is asking A to self-censor, there's nothing wrong with A complaining about what B is saying. If A's lying or being dishonest, oh well.
- kstrauser 6y ago
  I do get that, but really, B doesn’t have any special sway. They’re just some randos saying that they don’t like A’s posting. While annoying, that’s going to happen on every social network. If I went on Gab and started posting a lot of pro-Biden content, I’m certain plenty of people would tell me to knock it off. So sure, it’s alright for A to be annoyed by it. That’s definitely not a unique feature of the fediverse, though.