4 ms·

So if I express a liking for “free speech,” for example, my entire instance might be de-federated by Fediblock activists. And if I join another instance and di

by cbeach 3y ago

So if I express a liking for “free speech,” for example, my entire instance might be de-federated by Fediblock activists. And if I join another instance and discuss “free speech” I will be swiftly booted out, lest Fediblock comes for their instance, too. Can you see the issue with that? Do I represent a subversive niche group when I advocate for dangerous ideas like “free speech”? Am I the asshole?

JohnFen 3y ago
> Can you see the issue with that? Not really, no. I understand maybe being a little irritated, but not being upset about it. Just associate with instances where you're welcomed instead. There are many groups who wouldn't want me to be around, in real life and otherwise. That's just life. > Do I represent a subversive niche group when I advocate for dangerous ideas like “free speech”? I have no idea what you advocate for, honestly. Your comments here don't make that very clear-cut. But it doesn't matter for this point. The point is that it's a matter of freedom of association. Do you really want to hang around where you're not welcome, for whatever reason? I know I wouldn't. Life is too short.
- cbeach 3y ago
  The issue here, as I see it, is orchestrated blocking of viewpoints. Not just on one instance, but across many instances. Fediblock is systematic and partisan.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Sure, but I don't see how that changes the point at all. Alliances like Fediblock can't exclude you from the fediverse, only from those instances. I would think that the fediverse would be a thing that you, or anyone who is concerned about deplatforming and censorship, would be very happy about precisely because you can't be deplatformed or silenced on it. You can join like-minded instances, neutral instances, or even start your own, do whatever you want. You have total freedom of speech. You just don't have the freedom to impose your speech on people who don't want to hear it. Freedom of speech does not in any way imply that you have the right to force others to listen.
- subjectsigma 3y ago
  I absolutely despise this particular flavor of HN-style discourse. A few easy steps: 1. Do or advocate for something unreasonable (banning and blocking people for having different politics than you, even if they're inside the Overton Window, even if their opinion is mainstream and perfectly fine); 2. Pretend the other party is being unreasonable ("I'm not seeing the problem here.", "Can you see the issue with that?" "Not really, no"), "gaslighting" them as the kids say; 3. When further pressed for detail or explanation deflect and feign ignorance ("I have no idea what you advocate for, honestly"), even if what the other person is asking is very clear (Do you think people should be de-federated or otherwise censored for expressing political opinions which are not your own?). It is extremely, extremely obvious what the person you are replying to is concerned about but you don't actually care, do you?
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > Do or advocate for something unreasonable I am neither banning/blocking anyone, nor am I advocating doing so. I am arguing that that instances have the right to do so, and that them doing so doesn't make the platform useless to others. I never asserted that I agree with instances actually doing this. > "gaslighting" them as the kids say In what world does "I disagree" count as gaslighting? > It is extremely, extremely obvious what the person you are replying to is concerned about but you don't actually care, do you? It is not so obvious to me, no. If I take what he's saying literally, then I struggle with inconsistencies. If I don't, then I'm assuming that he has a certain perspective, and I don't want to do that because I can't actually read his mind. However, as I said in my comment, for the purposes of this conversation it doesn't really matter what he's concerned about. My stance and argument would be the same regardless of his sociopolitical viewpoint.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Kiuhrly1 3y ago
> So if I express a liking for “free speech,” for example, my entire instance might be de-federated by Fediblock activists. Yes, because saying that is so strongly associated with people that many instances want to actively avoid. Nobody owes you anything, they protect their own community interests and favor over-blocking rather than the alternative of risking people having to see posts that violate their community's values. > Am I the asshole? Probably not.

by cbeach 3y ago

JohnFen 3y ago

> Can you see the issue with that? Not really, no. I understand maybe being a little irritated, but not being upset about it. Just associate with instances where you're welcomed instead. There are many groups who wouldn't want me to be around, in real life and otherwise. That's just life. > Do I represent a subversive niche group when I advocate for dangerous ideas like “free speech”? I have no idea what you advocate for, honestly. Your comments here don't make that very clear-cut. But it doesn't matter for this point. The point is that it's a matter of freedom of association. Do you really want to hang around where you're not welcome, for whatever reason? I know I wouldn't. Life is too short.

cbeach 3y ago
The issue here, as I see it, is orchestrated blocking of viewpoints. Not just on one instance, but across many instances. Fediblock is systematic and partisan.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Sure, but I don't see how that changes the point at all. Alliances like Fediblock can't exclude you from the fediverse, only from those instances. I would think that the fediverse would be a thing that you, or anyone who is concerned about deplatforming and censorship, would be very happy about precisely because you can't be deplatformed or silenced on it. You can join like-minded instances, neutral instances, or even start your own, do whatever you want. You have total freedom of speech. You just don't have the freedom to impose your speech on people who don't want to hear it. Freedom of speech does not in any way imply that you have the right to force others to listen.
subjectsigma 3y ago
I absolutely despise this particular flavor of HN-style discourse. A few easy steps: 1. Do or advocate for something unreasonable (banning and blocking people for having different politics than you, even if they're inside the Overton Window, even if their opinion is mainstream and perfectly fine); 2. Pretend the other party is being unreasonable ("I'm not seeing the problem here.", "Can you see the issue with that?" "Not really, no"), "gaslighting" them as the kids say; 3. When further pressed for detail or explanation deflect and feign ignorance ("I have no idea what you advocate for, honestly"), even if what the other person is asking is very clear (Do you think people should be de-federated or otherwise censored for expressing political opinions which are not your own?). It is extremely, extremely obvious what the person you are replying to is concerned about but you don't actually care, do you?
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > Do or advocate for something unreasonable I am neither banning/blocking anyone, nor am I advocating doing so. I am arguing that that instances have the right to do so, and that them doing so doesn't make the platform useless to others. I never asserted that I agree with instances actually doing this. > "gaslighting" them as the kids say In what world does "I disagree" count as gaslighting? > It is extremely, extremely obvious what the person you are replying to is concerned about but you don't actually care, do you? It is not so obvious to me, no. If I take what he's saying literally, then I struggle with inconsistencies. If I don't, then I'm assuming that he has a certain perspective, and I don't want to do that because I can't actually read his mind. However, as I said in my comment, for the purposes of this conversation it doesn't really matter what he's concerned about. My stance and argument would be the same regardless of his sociopolitical viewpoint.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Kiuhrly1 3y ago

> So if I express a liking for “free speech,” for example, my entire instance might be de-federated by Fediblock activists. Yes, because saying that is so strongly associated with people that many instances want to actively avoid. Nobody owes you anything, they protect their own community interests and favor over-blocking rather than the alternative of risking people having to see posts that violate their community's values. > Am I the asshole? Probably not.