4 ms·

I really appreciate and am impressed by how thoughtful and genuine the responses here - including those not in support of the OP - are in general. I don't see n

I really appreciate and am impressed by how thoughtful and genuine the responses here - including those not in support of the OP - are in general. I don't see nearly anyone giving the author crap for not blindly loving PG, I don't see nearly anyone purposefully using the wrong pronouns as an insult (and the few who are are mostly getting flagged). Even folks who clearly disagree are praising the author and being respectful of them. Seeing this, though, just makes it even more perplexing to me how the same community that is so open to the experience of the author here is also so accepting of the changes that Meta and PG are describing because they're made under the banner of "free speech" or "allowing conversation." It seems clear that we as a community don't support, encourage, or permit people to throw slurs, insults, and harassment at others. Why are we okay with much larger and more powerful communities doing it in the name of these "freedoms" (in quotes because free speech is actually about the government, not private communities, policing speech).

sillyfluke 2y ago
I, too, found it refreshing. >It seems clear that we as a community don't support, encourage, or permit people to throw slurs, insults, and harassment at others. Why are we okay with much larger and more powerful communities doing it in the name of these "freedoms" Because the community uses the same freedoms to police those that throw slurs and does not feel it requires--that is the hope anyway--any other mandatory enforcement?
- ivraatiems 2y ago
  > Because the community uses the same freedoms to police those that throw slurs and does not feel it requires--that is the hope anyway--any other mandatory enforcement? We don't, though. We have moderators (hi dang) who get rid of those people. It's the same thing Facebook used to do, just on a much smaller scale.
  - sillyfluke 2y ago
    Hmm, I guess I misunderstood. But in that case, it's a bit of a mixed message. You say: > we as a community don't support, encourage, or permit people to throw slurs then you say: >We don't, though. We have moderators (hi dang) who get rid of those people. In the first you consider moderators as part of the community. In the second you don't it seems. And the people who can downvote I think are probably so high enough in number as to be seen as normal users and not moderators. The perception of the moderation in larger communities is that it is way more heavy handed and less accountable than the moderation that dang does. For example, in HN, I can see messages from dang warning a user they are repeating offences they have committed and I can easily see their past posts to verify whether that's true or not. And dang at least gives more than one-worded defenses or explanations about certain cases of moderation in the public forum itself and not restricted to private messages. HN even says you can email them regarding certain cases you feel strongly about. With Twitter, when an account is suspended you can't see the paper trail between the moderators and the user, or the past posts. And you need to get a hold of some hotshot acquaintence with a decent amount of followers to publically make your case to get the company big-wigs to notice. In HN, even in cases of shadow-banning, though newbies might not be aware, you can even toggle the shadow-banning off and see all the posts unfiltered. In Twitter, that option does not exist I think. It doesn't scale people say? Well, no one said it's easy...

sillyfluke 2y ago

I, too, found it refreshing. >It seems clear that we as a community don't support, encourage, or permit people to throw slurs, insults, and harassment at others. Why are we okay with much larger and more powerful communities doing it in the name of these "freedoms" Because the community uses the same freedoms to police those that throw slurs and does not feel it requires--that is the hope anyway--any other mandatory enforcement?

ivraatiems 2y ago
> Because the community uses the same freedoms to police those that throw slurs and does not feel it requires--that is the hope anyway--any other mandatory enforcement? We don't, though. We have moderators (hi dang) who get rid of those people. It's the same thing Facebook used to do, just on a much smaller scale.
- sillyfluke 2y ago
  Hmm, I guess I misunderstood. But in that case, it's a bit of a mixed message. You say: > we as a community don't support, encourage, or permit people to throw slurs then you say: >We don't, though. We have moderators (hi dang) who get rid of those people. In the first you consider moderators as part of the community. In the second you don't it seems. And the people who can downvote I think are probably so high enough in number as to be seen as normal users and not moderators. The perception of the moderation in larger communities is that it is way more heavy handed and less accountable than the moderation that dang does. For example, in HN, I can see messages from dang warning a user they are repeating offences they have committed and I can easily see their past posts to verify whether that's true or not. And dang at least gives more than one-worded defenses or explanations about certain cases of moderation in the public forum itself and not restricted to private messages. HN even says you can email them regarding certain cases you feel strongly about. With Twitter, when an account is suspended you can't see the paper trail between the moderators and the user, or the past posts. And you need to get a hold of some hotshot acquaintence with a decent amount of followers to publically make your case to get the company big-wigs to notice. In HN, even in cases of shadow-banning, though newbies might not be aware, you can even toggle the shadow-banning off and see all the posts unfiltered. In Twitter, that option does not exist I think. It doesn't scale people say? Well, no one said it's easy...