Asklemmy

The point is to create a distributed forum. The fact that it’s mostly leftists in this instance does not reflect what the entire network will look like once it’s established. Maintainers of each instance can moderate however they want, and the other instances can choose either to connect to them or block them. It’s literally just a bunch of independent forums but with plans to be able to link agreeable ones together.

Thanks for you detailed reply. It's good that yes anyone can use this platform to make any instance they like. It is after all open source. I am concerned that non agreeable forums could not still link somehow. I am also concerned that given the lefts pattern of censorship too much focus with lemmy will be put on that instead of how to be against censorship.

Then on the left there seems an obsession to silence anyone or thing they don’t like

Really? Try disagreeing on the “the donald” site and see how fast you get banned. Try it in /r/conservative on Reddit. The fact that you think that “leftists” are the only ones that do this is ridiculous.

I am going to have to agree and disagree, it is clear that the current round of censorship that is hitting most is from the left. We even have a case now on thedonald.win of someone having their smses blocked and shadow banned by their carrier for mentioning thedonald.win. This is in clear violation of common carrier laws. The left also has a long list of nonos when it comes to speech, you only need to look at the rules on this site for an example. The right however has a history now of establishing sites that protect speech, with for example voat, ruqqus, saidit, 4chan, 8chan etc.

Yes I would agree if a leftist goes to a right haven like say voat you will get destroyed, verbally and with votes etc and probably banned. I see this though as even more incentive that solutions that truly protect speech are found so it doesn't happen. For example maybe you allow instances to store content and users from other instances but also block moderator actions. So if for example like we have on reddit now where popular or controversial posts will build many comments and votes but get deleted they can still continue somewhere else.

You’re confusing this instance with the entire fediverse. This instance might be moderated tightly but not all of them will be. Again, it’s an open source forum software that anyone can run, for better or for worse, just like your more traditional forums.

Ok so I did cover this before, but to reiterate I am not confusing them I understand that is how things are and will work. My concern is given the stance on this instance and some developers like nutomic I am concerned with the development path. I would really like you had more focus on tools to protect speech and less on looks, though from comments on ruqqus your looks do need some work but I mean to me how hard is it to make text work ok?

I actually disagree that “censorship” is objectively bad. Yes, political censorship in general is objectively bad, but there are things that are actually harmful to people and shouldn’t be tolerated at all: racism, sexism, discrimination in general, content depicting or advocating sexual abuse, pedophilia, stalking/doxxing, threats, slander, incitement of violence, the list goes on. Those things cause actual, tangible harm, so why shouldn’t they be censored? The law agrees with me too as many/most of those things are outright illegal in most countries. Unmoderated social media always turns into a cesspool of racists, sexists, edgelords and other general toxicity. Show me one unmoderated place on the internet that doesn’t follow this rule.

Yes not all censorship is bad, the problem comes when who gets to decide what to censor? The level of censorship on for example reddit has gone well out side what you describe but then also allows racism and sexism and discrimination if it is from a certain group to another certain group.

The thing is speech in of itself does not cause harm. Speech is not violence. Violence in reaction to speech is harm. Now just because some people can not control themselves in reacting to certain speech does not necessarily mean you should stop certain speech but more that it is you should give tools so certain people are protected from certain speech. Which is largely what moderation is. It's just not everyone needs protection. Think like a website block that stops your kids seeing porn, but you don't ask the porn sites to be deleted do you? Well maybe in some extreme christian cases they would. The point is content doesn't need actually be deleted to achieve moderation just hidden from the people that don't want to see it.

With regards to laws they vary widely, just because something is illegal does not necessarily make it wrong. All speech is meant to be legal in the US but exceptions have been carved out for a variety of reasons. The problem when you get into stopping speech is where do you stop? On the left there seems to be no limit to seeking censorship.

You seem to be arguing in borderline bad faith but you can not show me possibly one instance of speech causing harm. The light puffs of air from a mouth and taps of keys or movements of a pen are not physically capable of harm. It is the linked actions to speech you claim as harm. And that I think is the problem, as on the right they have far more impulse control and so are less likely to react so the left will always be at a disadvantage to freer speech as they have less impulse control and as with their favorite word "triggered" so easily. This is a fundamental problem though because to be civilized you must be less triggered and able to discuss things without resulting to destructive actions. There is value to be had on discussing everything, including race and sex and more. With no discussion there will be no real progress and to that how can you call yourselves progressives?