I’m writing this post to inform you all that I have decided to defederate from the exploding-heads[.]com instance.
After carefully reviewing the instance, reported posts, and comments from our community, content on exploding-heads is clearly mostly—if not completely—in violation of our instance rules, including content posted by the instance admin themselves (a large factor in the decision to defederate any instance).
On other fediverse platforms I run, such as Mastodon, I would typically respond by “Limiting” such instances, since the main goal is to avoid the publishing and promotion of such topics on our public (“All”) timelines, rather than control what you can or cannot access. Unfortunately, Lemmy does not yet offer the fine-grained moderation controls to make this possible, so complete defederation is our only option to avoid the re-publishing of content which is consistently hateful and discriminatory.
Defederation from other Lemmy instances is not taken lightly, and in the future I will continue to review instances on a case by case basis.
It’s never about Free Speech either. It’s almost always about the ability to post racist, bigoted, shit ass content with 0 repercussions.
I am a huge proponent of free speech - as in, I don’t think it’s appropriate for any government to tell you what you’re allowed and not allowed to say.
I am also a huge proponent of helping people find out when they fuck around and abuse that right while expecting zero consequences.
#MakeNazisAfraidAgain
I don’t agree. I think a government should absolutely have the ability to limit speech, but not any speech in directed towards criticizing said government. If the last few years have proven anything “citizens” aren’t not up to the task of preventing or stopping hateful rhetoric.
That’s a fair point… but my issue with that sort of setup is that it depends on the government not being co-opted or corrupted by those very same people, which can’t necessarily be guaranteed. To wit: Florida, Texas, Idaho, etc.
These days it feels like a crap shoot either way.
This sentiment always pops up when the topic is discussed, but it doesn’t really make any sense.
Any sort of setup depends on the government not being co-opted or corrupted.
Free speech absolutism does nothing to prevent a corrupt government from censoring you.
You can’t really use that as an argument for free speech absolutism when it suffers from the exact same issue.
Do you believe governments counties like Saudi Arabia, Russia and China should have the ability to limit speech, as long as it’s about things other than government criticism?
Your approach would suggest that you think it’s acceptable that the Russian government is censoring any “LGBT propaganda” and retaliationg against citizens for it with fines and prison time.
The problem with people who have conditions for free speech is that they think they (or those who they agree with) will be the ones deciding what those conditions are.
I don’t think all speech should be protected.
You can’t abuse a right. That’s why it’s a right.
Also you’re confusing Free Speech with the First Amendment. It’s concerning that it’s a very common mistake from people with strong opinions on the topic.
Free Speech is not exclusively about governments. It’s a principle that ideas should be allowed to be exchanged without restriction. Yes, even the ideas that are pretty much indefensible.
The reason isn’t because we want indefensible ideas to spread, it’s because we can’t trust any entity or even the society to decide what is acceptable to express. For example, in many countries you will simply get beaten up for expressing support for LGBT rights, regardless of government censoring you. They are using the “fuck around and find out” approach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech :
Emphasis mine. You’re not a huge proponent of free speech. You sound like you’re only a proponent of the first amendment.
Nah. You’re off-base here. You’re very clearly falling prey to the Paradox of Tolerance.
I’m not sure the fine folks that come crawling out of the woodwork to defend free speech specifically when it’s Nazis are falling prey to anything, unfortunately
“Free speech to say what” is a very demanding question to some people. The vast majority will avoid it by saying “anything I want”.
Stopping and asking what you aren’t allowed to say out loud, and from whom will the consequences be doled out, paints a very clear picture. It’s never good shit they can’t say, and it’s never the govt that is punishing them. Beyond that, nothing in the Constitution says I need to listen to whatever bullshit they wanna say.
I’m not in the US. Living in Canada right now and we have hate speech laws for exactly this reason.
Ours are…not quite as robust. The social implications are there, which I think should be the greater pressure than specific govt laws. Those are short sighted and do nothing to teach aside from punish. Social ostracization and breakdowns in your life pose a much more tangible alternative. The problem now is that getting “canceled” is a badge of honor to 40% of the citizens here.
Yeah I hear you. That sentiment has been slowly seeping up north too. “Woke” or “Cancel” culture are the new calling card for racists and bigots et al. Most of these people just pining for the days where they can just be openly racists and such again.
It’s crazy. I very much reside in “live and let live” country, but the second someone wears overalls, drives a Subaru, and uses pronouns, they start threatening to shut the library down because the Clinton Pedo ring has made it to Bumfuck town…
“Freedom of association” is a major part of free speech/expression… when certain types start harping about their freeze peach, what they are really saying is that they want to take away others freedom to associate… or dissociate, as it were.