Not server admins job to police speech.
It literally is, though.
Well we are no longer federated with those losers.
I give them like a month maybe two if I am being generous, before their instance shuts down because they only have like 500 members and the admins suck.
lol. lmao even
Bit idea: new NSFW instance where admins “don’t police speech,” starting with comically large amounts of PPB in every thread.
@Thief@lemmy.myserv.one with all due respect, if you want good people to use a space it is in fact completely necessary to police speech that those good people find detestable, or else anyone can come into that space, start saying completely abhorrent shit that the good people detest, and every good person will leave. What you will be left with is the people who like the abhorrent shit.
From an entirely utilitarian perspective. Even if eventually having a highly mixed community is a long-term goal, it is still necessary to specifically target various groups of core early-adopters and appeal to them before growing into other groups after creating enough value for them to stick around even with some things they dislike.
I’ve been a community manager and a marketing manager for a few companies you would know.
To add to your point their instance only has like 500 users. Nobody will miss them.
start saying completely abhorrent shit that the good people detest,
or the people the speech is targeted, how would a person from west asia feel about the instance if someone can just come and wish them death.
Exactly, and there is literally someone from that region in that thread thanking me for calling this shit out.
I am Iranian, and thank you. We need to keep lemmy free of this shit atleast.
I’ve been a community manager and a marketing manager for a few companies you would know.
This statement gives you negative credit in my opinion, i.e. one should actively mistrust what you’re saying on this topic.
I think I could’ve been doing a lot more evil than building videogame communities and lan events tbh
I’m not saying you did any evil, just that your expertise on this topic is based on corporate ideals which likely aren’t compatible with actually good ideals.
My statement was not meant to be any commentary about you as a person.
Are you implying that the “corporate ideals” of allowing people to spew any slurs they want until everyone who dislikes that leaves are better than the ideals of… Not doing that? In the context of that being the only thing I’ve said in this conversation it really does look like that’s what you’re saying and needs some clarification.
Basically all I’m saying is that your last sentence does not help to prove your credibility. You said it in a way as if it was meant to make people believe in what you’re saying, as if it gave weight to the point that you made.
I’m just letting you know that at least for me, it had the opposite effect. I’m not arguing with the rest of your comment.
Yeah ok but then you’re presumably a fairly left wing person who has an immediate negative reaction to anyone citing any job they do for private companies. That’s fine. You weren’t the target audience of it, the free speech absolutist can be assumed to be a right wing corporate bootlicker who does value hierarchy and subject authorities.
Generally I would’ve expected most lefties to pick on marketing being the most evil of departments rather than just “corporations bad”. Almost everyone’s got a job at some sort of company unless they’re in government or charity.
👍❤️
Doesn’t matter where they did their work, you can do that sort of work in a corporate environment and help make a workplace better and less toxic. You are grasping at straws here.
Look dude we all got to eat somehow, the fuck you do for a living eh?
You seem to have misunderstood me completely. I’m only doubting their expertise on this topic, not their career choice.
No I understood you perfectly and your critique is entirely unrelated to the topic at hand and you’re just being an asshole.
❤️
The “not policing speech” thing is such an odd take to me. We have so many examples on the internet of places going to absolute shit from this mentality. It doesn’t work, all that happens is the biggest shitheads start slinging poison and driving away anyone with half a heart. You end up with a space where the only people left are a few reactionary assholes playing a game of who can be the biggest piece of shit.
I was prepared to recant this position if their admins didn’t just double down on this, but no. If you think it is not your job to police speech on your platform especially when it comes to a user advocating actual genocide then you should be isolated from the rest of the fediverse.
@Thief@lemmy.myserv.one Yeah I am tagging you again because fuck you.
That is literally your only fucking job.
on the topic of shithole instances feddit continues to really live up to it’s name. Politicians enable violence against society on a genocidal scale? I sleep. Remind people that those people have frail, vulnerable bodies? Good lord, good heavens, the violence!! 🙄
The comment you responded to was removed, so I’m not sure if I missed something or not.
I’m still pretty new to the fediverse, so apologies if this is something obvious. But what’s the instance guilty of? Better to know what’s what at this stage.
Removed Lemmy comments can still be read by anyone quite easily, just check the user in question’s public mod log
my comment on the deleted comment basically explains. The deleted comment was “advocating violence” against politicians who are using their elected positions to push back against action against climate change. This will directly worsen what’s going to happen and lead to the deaths of millions through inaction.
It’s SHIT LIBERALISM to censor “advocacy for violence” against these people when they themselves are literally advocating (with the power of elected positions behind it) violence against human civilization on a genocidal scale. Censoring advocacy for violence against these people who are killing us all is the admins on “feddit” directly taking a stand on THEIR SIDE. There is no such thing as neutrality here.
This is how you get fascists in your community. Fuck this instance, let it burn.
This @Thief@lemmy.myserv.one fellow sounds like a corpo loser. Do your job, jannie, no tip
I agree that we defederate from this isle of losers.
Right? Like that response sounds exactly like the sort of canned speech from some soulless HR goon.
Literally the main job of a server admin is policing speech, isn’t it? Like, there’s also announcing downtime and such, but the main thing is that there are rules for how and what people can communicate to each other and enforcing those rules needs to be the main task of an admin because that’s 99.9% of what a forum contains!
lmao ikr that response was wild. Also the user in question only got banned after I threatened them and called them out about this.
Anti-federation gang vindicated yet again
Imagine: in a cell in a small town in the desert, a woman is being tortured by the secret police. Suddenly, the Galactic Avengers storm through the door. They vaporise the torturers with their ray-guns, and liberate the woman. […]
What happens if, instead of the Galactic Avengers, a philosopher storms into the torture cell? Will he stop the torture?
No, even if he did have a ray-gun. That is not what social philosophy is about. He will note that the woman complains, that she is being subjected to injustice. Then he will go out to buy a copy of the Constitution, and examine the structure of the society.
If he is a liberal-democratic philosopher, he will look at the guarantees of civil and political rights in the Constitution, and the structure of government. Is there freedom of opinion? Is the country under the rule of law? Is there a separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Is there political plurality, and can political parties compete for power? Are there free and fair elections? Non-liberal social philosophers might have different criteria, but they too will look at the structure of society.
If the liberal-democratic social philosopher is satisfied with the society he finds, he would then go back to the cell, and inform the woman that the society was just. If she complained that she was still being tortured, and that she found that unjust, the philosopher would explain that social philosophy is not about individual cases.
He would point out that she could apply to an independent judiciary to be released. If she was tortured to death first, her friends or family could file later criminal charges against the torturers, and that complaint would be assessed by a fair and independent tribunal. And after explaining to the woman that she lived in a just society, the philosopher would leave.
(Source.)
I think this is kind of weird because it suggests an opposition to systemic critique when the problem with liberal-democratic philosophers is not that they do systemic critique (and sometimes their problem is exactly that they’re too atomizing) but that they do it very poorly or anti-socially. The secret police in this scenario (which is a spooky way of saying intelligence agents, basically) are also part of the system, and if what they are doing is enabled by the system and bad, that too is part of the purview of systemic critique. The structure of society is the main thing a political philosopher should be concerned with, and getting too caught up in generalizing from specific cases (or stupid thought experiments) is an actual problem.
I mean, I think that what the quote here is really arguing against is cargo cult thinking, but I think it’s expressing that point extremely poorly.
Oh god dammit the philosophy nerds are here. I knew this post was gonna bring you mfers out.
I mean, I think you and I agree on the post, see the comment I made where I responded to the OOP and you said “lmao ikr.” I’m not in any way defending Thief (who is a cowardly asshole and completely wrong here) or this instance that I’ve never heard of, I’m just saying that the specific argument AnBol posted [as-presented] is a detrimental one because, as socialists, we should be very concerned with promoting systemic critique because we are opposed to the standing system and this argument is ceding too much ground to the liberals by acting like their society is good on a systemic level.
My comment was purely tongue in cheek, I too am a philosophy nerd lol.
Oh, please pardon me then, my mistake. Sometimes there are people who say things like that somewhat more earnestly.
Nazi bar ass response
they site banned me. We need to defederate them and ensure every other respectable instance does so as well.
As you said it’s a nazi bar situation.
So they are willing to do their job as admin, but only when it involves people opposed to the most reprehensible people imaginable.
I mean, Thief did ban them though, right?
Only after I called them out.
deleted by creator
