6 ms·

> A community of leftist privacy and FOSS enthusiasts, run by Lemmy’s developers > Rules > No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, tran

> A community of leftist privacy and FOSS enthusiasts, run by Lemmy’s developers > Rules > No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct. > Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here. > No porn. > No Ads / Spamming. And a look at the moderation abilities: > Can lock, remove, and restore posts and comments. Can ban and unban users from communities and the site. A quick search leads us to this issue thread[1], which starts with a very reasonable request: > It's generally not a good idea to hard code something like the slur filter because the needs of every instance is different. Instances in another language would need their versions, and cases where the slur filter over blocks need to be addressed by the admins. > A good idea would be to store the slur filter in the database and initialize it with a default when spinning up an instance, but make it editable by admins without changing source files. …which encounters, shall we say some resistance: > If you dont like it, fork it. Stop bothering us about it, we will never fully remove the slur filter. That's just one of the quite hostile responses of this <checks notes> group against hateful conduct. It seems that not only has "community of leftist[s]" given up on free speech (as is the vogue), they've given up on real federation too. We have other comments here asking for a centralised authority - we have it, it's the developers! [1] https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/622 https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/622

Quarrelsome 4y ago
> If you dont like it, fork it. Stop bothering us about it, we will never fully remove the slur filter. how is that a hostile response exactly? Its a fundamental premise of foss isn't it?
- brigandish 4y ago
  If I ask you something nicely and you come back with "Stop bothering me about it", how do you think that would come off?
  - test098 4y ago
    Like someone exercising free speech?
    - brigandish 4y ago
      Whether someone is exercising their free speech is not relevant to the perception of hostility in a comment, or similar kind of assessment, unless it involves a (at least perceived) threat of imminent danger. That's clearly not the case here so I'm afraid I can't help answer your question, rhetorical or not, as it's missed the point somewhat.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - test098 4y ago
        That was a reference to your line, "It seems that not only has 'community of leftist[s]' given up on free speech (as is the vogue)..." You seem to place quite a bit of value in free speech, yet are bothered when the creators of this project use theirs to set boundaries, going so far as to call it "hostile." It's unfortunate that you find it hostile - I consider the hateful conduct that they're banning much more hostile and support their methods of collaboration to that end.
        brigandish 4y ago
        I called their responses in the issue thread hostile, which they were. As to the limits of free speech, they're not just limiting what they hear/see, they're deciding to do that for others too. That seems to go against the ideas of free speech and of federation, especially in the open source space. > It's unfortunate that you find it hostile - I consider the hateful conduct that they're banning much more hostile and support their methods of collaboration to that end. It is hostile, but how is their hostility in that case justified by their stance against certain forms of prejudice? I don't see the justification. Moreover, the list of prejudices (if they are, they're just vague assertions at this point) they gave is not necessarily hostile. For example, a racist might publish a paper saying that the IQ of one race is less than another's. That is racist but not hostile. If they were to write "thus we should eliminate them" or "I hate them because of this" or, to a member of that race were to show any sort of aggression for simply being of that race, that would be hostile. It is eminently possible (and I'd say, easy) to be against hostility of any sort discussed here, and against racism while also noting that they're not synonyms and that they don't always overlap. Nuance exists, even when discussing prejudice.
kevinh 4y ago
That issue that you linked shows that it's configurable now. What's the issue here?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- brigandish 4y ago
  The attitude and intent of the developers running the project has no bearing here?
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    None. This is like complaining to Linus that your favorite <kernel feature> isn't supported and then getting mad when he tells you to pound sand when you can simply fork the kernel and add it yourself.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      A linux kernel is not part of a federated network and if I fork it I'm still able to interoperate with other machines running Linux. Are forks permitted to join Lemmy's federated network, and are those that use different filters to those that the core team would want able to?
      - test098 4y ago
        It sounds like you wouldn't want to be part of Lemmy's federated network in the first place. Maybe use a network that you find more palatable? Why do your preferences trump theirs?
        brigandish 4y ago
        Why wouldn't I want to listen to what myriad people have to say on the Lemmy network?
sirl1on 4y ago
The slur filter isn't hard coded anymore since more than a year now
last_responder 4y ago
So when you say free speech do you mean the kind guaranteed by the constitution?
- brigandish 4y ago
  I'm intrigued as to why it would matter, so I'll go with yes and perhaps you'll decide to tell me why.
- skissane 4y ago
  "Free speech" is a universal concept, whereas by the "constitution" I assume you mean that of the US. A universal concept isn't limited or controlled by what one particular country's constitution (as interpreted by that country's courts) may have to say about it.
  - mariusor 4y ago
    First paragraph on Wikipedia: > Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The right to freedom of expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations. So, when talking about freedom of speech most nations abide and follow the prescriptions of the international framework supplied by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and further ratified as members of the United Nations. I think it's safe to speak about the universal concept and the national/political concept as being the identical.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      Japan has ratified the UN Declaration of Human Rights and has a constitution that is heavily influenced by the US one but it doesn't protect freedom of speech in the way you think it might. From [1]: > Under Article 230-1 of the Criminal Code of Japan: > “(1) A person who defames another by alleging facts in public shall, regardless of whether such facts are true or false, be punished by imprisonment with or without work for not more than three (3) years or a fine of not more than 500,000 yen.” “regardless of whether such facts are true or false” isn't the way to protect freedom of speech in my mind, nor anyone I've ever heard supporting freedom of speech. Hence, no, it's not safe to conflate the concept and the implementation in law, and not just for this reason but because in the vast majority of cases the implementation in law does not protect freedom of speech to even the amount the US constitution does (which is still not far enough, in my opinion). [1] https://kellywarnerlaw.com/japan-defamation-laws/ https://kellywarnerlaw.com/japan-defamation-laws/
Nutomic 4y ago
If you dont like the rules or userbase of lemmy.ml, you can choose one of the many other instances, which are administrated by different people and have completely different rules. There are also some instances which have the slur filter disabled. https://join-lemmy.org/instances https://join-lemmy.org/instances
- brigandish 4y ago
  That's good to know but I was only commenting on the statements made by the developers on the link provided, which I do take issue with. Why this should lead to any thought that I or others who have a problem with this statement would not "like the … userbase of lemmy.ml", I cannot fathom as it is entirely unnatural to me, although I do see it in some others - particularly amongst those who would make a statement such as that these developers have, ironically. Agreement or disagreement on pretty much any topic is not the basis upon which to judge one's own feelings towards any individual and certainly not a group. That is anathema to me and would find the suggestion inappropriate.

Quarrelsome 4y ago

> If you dont like it, fork it. Stop bothering us about it, we will never fully remove the slur filter. how is that a hostile response exactly? Its a fundamental premise of foss isn't it?

brigandish 4y ago
If I ask you something nicely and you come back with "Stop bothering me about it", how do you think that would come off?
- test098 4y ago
  Like someone exercising free speech?
  - brigandish 4y ago
    Whether someone is exercising their free speech is not relevant to the perception of hostility in a comment, or similar kind of assessment, unless it involves a (at least perceived) threat of imminent danger. That's clearly not the case here so I'm afraid I can't help answer your question, rhetorical or not, as it's missed the point somewhat.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - test098 4y ago
      That was a reference to your line, "It seems that not only has 'community of leftist[s]' given up on free speech (as is the vogue)..." You seem to place quite a bit of value in free speech, yet are bothered when the creators of this project use theirs to set boundaries, going so far as to call it "hostile." It's unfortunate that you find it hostile - I consider the hateful conduct that they're banning much more hostile and support their methods of collaboration to that end.
      - brigandish 4y ago
        I called their responses in the issue thread hostile, which they were. As to the limits of free speech, they're not just limiting what they hear/see, they're deciding to do that for others too. That seems to go against the ideas of free speech and of federation, especially in the open source space. > It's unfortunate that you find it hostile - I consider the hateful conduct that they're banning much more hostile and support their methods of collaboration to that end. It is hostile, but how is their hostility in that case justified by their stance against certain forms of prejudice? I don't see the justification. Moreover, the list of prejudices (if they are, they're just vague assertions at this point) they gave is not necessarily hostile. For example, a racist might publish a paper saying that the IQ of one race is less than another's. That is racist but not hostile. If they were to write "thus we should eliminate them" or "I hate them because of this" or, to a member of that race were to show any sort of aggression for simply being of that race, that would be hostile. It is eminently possible (and I'd say, easy) to be against hostility of any sort discussed here, and against racism while also noting that they're not synonyms and that they don't always overlap. Nuance exists, even when discussing prejudice.

kevinh 4y ago

That issue that you linked shows that it's configurable now. What's the issue here?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
brigandish 4y ago
The attitude and intent of the developers running the project has no bearing here?
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  None. This is like complaining to Linus that your favorite <kernel feature> isn't supported and then getting mad when he tells you to pound sand when you can simply fork the kernel and add it yourself.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    A linux kernel is not part of a federated network and if I fork it I'm still able to interoperate with other machines running Linux. Are forks permitted to join Lemmy's federated network, and are those that use different filters to those that the core team would want able to?
    - test098 4y ago
      It sounds like you wouldn't want to be part of Lemmy's federated network in the first place. Maybe use a network that you find more palatable? Why do your preferences trump theirs?
      - brigandish 4y ago
        Why wouldn't I want to listen to what myriad people have to say on the Lemmy network?

sirl1on 4y ago

The slur filter isn't hard coded anymore since more than a year now

last_responder 4y ago

So when you say free speech do you mean the kind guaranteed by the constitution?

brigandish 4y ago
I'm intrigued as to why it would matter, so I'll go with yes and perhaps you'll decide to tell me why.
skissane 4y ago
"Free speech" is a universal concept, whereas by the "constitution" I assume you mean that of the US. A universal concept isn't limited or controlled by what one particular country's constitution (as interpreted by that country's courts) may have to say about it.
- mariusor 4y ago
  First paragraph on Wikipedia: > Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The right to freedom of expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations. So, when talking about freedom of speech most nations abide and follow the prescriptions of the international framework supplied by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and further ratified as members of the United Nations. I think it's safe to speak about the universal concept and the national/political concept as being the identical.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    Japan has ratified the UN Declaration of Human Rights and has a constitution that is heavily influenced by the US one but it doesn't protect freedom of speech in the way you think it might. From [1]: > Under Article 230-1 of the Criminal Code of Japan: > “(1) A person who defames another by alleging facts in public shall, regardless of whether such facts are true or false, be punished by imprisonment with or without work for not more than three (3) years or a fine of not more than 500,000 yen.” “regardless of whether such facts are true or false” isn't the way to protect freedom of speech in my mind, nor anyone I've ever heard supporting freedom of speech. Hence, no, it's not safe to conflate the concept and the implementation in law, and not just for this reason but because in the vast majority of cases the implementation in law does not protect freedom of speech to even the amount the US constitution does (which is still not far enough, in my opinion). [1] https://kellywarnerlaw.com/japan-defamation-laws/ https://kellywarnerlaw.com/japan-defamation-laws/

Nutomic 4y ago

If you dont like the rules or userbase of lemmy.ml, you can choose one of the many other instances, which are administrated by different people and have completely different rules. There are also some instances which have the slur filter disabled. https://join-lemmy.org/instances https://join-lemmy.org/instances

brigandish 4y ago
That's good to know but I was only commenting on the statements made by the developers on the link provided, which I do take issue with. Why this should lead to any thought that I or others who have a problem with this statement would not "like the … userbase of lemmy.ml", I cannot fathom as it is entirely unnatural to me, although I do see it in some others - particularly amongst those who would make a statement such as that these developers have, ironically. Agreement or disagreement on pretty much any topic is not the basis upon which to judge one's own feelings towards any individual and certainly not a group. That is anathema to me and would find the suggestion inappropriate.