4 ms·

I don't need to read the rules to know that the moderation policy is even more restrictive than reddit's and it's therefore not worth the trouble.

by veave 3y ago

metalliqaz 3y ago
how do you know that without reading the rules?
- failrate 3y ago
  Perhaps they contribute to r/psychics.
photonerd 3y ago
That’s definitely a win for kbin.
- DaSHacka 3y ago
  If you align with the moderators politically, perhaps.
  - photonerd 3y ago
    Let’s face it, it’s not about politics. It’s about not spreading hate & lies. It’s just one political side does that more, so conflates the two
    - yanderekko 3y ago
      >It’s about not spreading hate & lies. As determined by your local Ministry of Truth, of course. You could see why many people might be skeptical of their benevolence. Let's face it. A lot of these platforms will absolutely ban you for saying true things in a problematic fashion, eg. FBI crime statistics. It's widely accepted and celebrated and it doesn't pass the laugh test to say that it's just about stopping misinformation or whatever. Because you're hurting The Cause and that can't be allowed.
      - guraf 3y ago
        I don't think you are wrong per se, I've seen first hand that dismissal or even censorship of FBI crime stats. But even though the data is truthful and I wish we could discuss it, it's hard to deny that the goal of the poster is usually to legitimize hate and after a few heated discussions the mods learn to recognize it as a red flag and they act early. I know, it sounds like a slippery slope fallacy. But we've seen how platforms turn out when it's allowed. Eg voat or gab.
        yanderekko 3y ago
        Yeah, I mean I get the rationale, but at that point you're pivoting from "we're combating clear hate/misinformation" - which can perhaps be readily justified to a reasonable impartial observer - to "we're combating speech/expression that we think is harmful", which in many cases cannot. In an era of high partisan hatred (ie. today) this will lead to community splintering.
        photonerd 3y ago
        The word “clear” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your first quote, because in combination with the second quote it is simply excusing hate speech by saying it only matters if it’s clear to you rather than the reality: clear to those directly affected. Because that is what you’re complaining about: the harassed voicing their concerns and having people make moderation choices based on that.
unsupp0rted 3y ago
Start your own thing and be as permissive as you can get away with
fortranally 3y ago
I couldn't find a link to the rules but if it's anything like other fediverse projects - Mastodon in particular - then I agree. It's likely to be ruled by people with a 'toxic positivity' mindset who insist on everyone having the same set of political and cultural opinions as their own, with very little dissent permitted, under the threat of being individually kicked out, or having one's server defederated, or both.

I don't need to read the rules to know that the moderation policy is even more restrictive than reddit's and it's therefore not worth the trouble.

by veave 3y ago

I don't need to read the rules to know that the moderation policy is even more restrictive than reddit's and it's therefore not worth the trouble.

metalliqaz 3y ago

how do you know that without reading the rules?

failrate 3y ago
Perhaps they contribute to r/psychics.

photonerd 3y ago

That’s definitely a win for kbin.

DaSHacka 3y ago
If you align with the moderators politically, perhaps.
- photonerd 3y ago
  Let’s face it, it’s not about politics. It’s about not spreading hate & lies. It’s just one political side does that more, so conflates the two
  - yanderekko 3y ago
    >It’s about not spreading hate & lies. As determined by your local Ministry of Truth, of course. You could see why many people might be skeptical of their benevolence. Let's face it. A lot of these platforms will absolutely ban you for saying true things in a problematic fashion, eg. FBI crime statistics. It's widely accepted and celebrated and it doesn't pass the laugh test to say that it's just about stopping misinformation or whatever. Because you're hurting The Cause and that can't be allowed.
    - guraf 3y ago
      I don't think you are wrong per se, I've seen first hand that dismissal or even censorship of FBI crime stats. But even though the data is truthful and I wish we could discuss it, it's hard to deny that the goal of the poster is usually to legitimize hate and after a few heated discussions the mods learn to recognize it as a red flag and they act early. I know, it sounds like a slippery slope fallacy. But we've seen how platforms turn out when it's allowed. Eg voat or gab.
      - yanderekko 3y ago
        Yeah, I mean I get the rationale, but at that point you're pivoting from "we're combating clear hate/misinformation" - which can perhaps be readily justified to a reasonable impartial observer - to "we're combating speech/expression that we think is harmful", which in many cases cannot. In an era of high partisan hatred (ie. today) this will lead to community splintering.
        photonerd 3y ago
        The word “clear” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your first quote, because in combination with the second quote it is simply excusing hate speech by saying it only matters if it’s clear to you rather than the reality: clear to those directly affected. Because that is what you’re complaining about: the harassed voicing their concerns and having people make moderation choices based on that.

unsupp0rted 3y ago

Start your own thing and be as permissive as you can get away with

fortranally 3y ago

I couldn't find a link to the rules but if it's anything like other fediverse projects - Mastodon in particular - then I agree. It's likely to be ruled by people with a 'toxic positivity' mindset who insist on everyone having the same set of political and cultural opinions as their own, with very little dissent permitted, under the threat of being individually kicked out, or having one's server defederated, or both.