I am exploring Lemmy right now and what I see is very worrying to me, but I also don’t understand wth is going on with some instances here. I don’t know if it’s smart to post this, but here we go.
I am partial to Marxist and anarchist ideology, but lemmygrad looks completely unhinged to me. Is it a parody? Some content is fine and some of it is insane.
On the other hand, beehaw looked super inviting from the outside and I even applied to join them. Then, I looked closer and that instance’s moderation looks totalitarian and rigid in the other way. (I understand why they blocked lemmygrad though…)
I’m seeing this impact other communities in different ways and there’s some kind of witch hunt happening on both sides…
I want to interact with people that can respect each-other and that can hold open-minded discussions about any topics without devolving into some tribal war.
Edit:
I realize my post is not a simple question… Let me clarify some thoughs:
-I do not mean beehaw is far-right. The just seem strict and that’s their right.
-I worry profiles can “inherit” the bad reputation of instances they interacted with and get pre-emptively banned.
-People are used to reddit and tend to centralize. Is the “just switch community” really an option?
-English is far from my first language and I might’ve judged things too quickly/harshly so take my criticism with a grain of salt.
I can share the perspective of why I joined beehaw instead of the other services.
I used to be on the side of free-speech maximalists, but after seeing communities crumble because of toxicity driving out people, I also came to see the same problems with social media that the beehaw folks see.
On anon/pseudo anon places, the social structure to correct anti-social behavior does not exist like in real life. So to create an environment that’s tolerable to the majority of people, you have to isolate and punish the bad actors.
I’m past the age where i want to be spending time on things and places where people are hateful and mean all the time.
Freedom of speech is never freedom of consequence. And if that consequence is that nobody wants to listen to you, well that’s on you.
Freedom of speech is by definition freedom from consequence for speech.
“Yeah you can criticize glorious leader, you have free speech. You’ll just spend the rest of your life unemployable and die/in a gulag”
Nobody is implying that a lack of freedom of speech means they put a gag on your face preventing you from speaking. A lack of freedom of speech means harsh consequences for speech.
Freedom of speech is from consequences from the government. That means you cannot be prosecuted for insulting politicians for example. But you can certainly be sued in civil court for the same thing.
You are 100% incorrect and are confusing the first amendment of the united states with the concept of freedom of speech.
Why is the government special? Are you implying powerful corporations can’t deprive people of rights or oppress people? That is very incorrect and there is a mountain of evidence for this. Are you implying that communities can’t or haven’t shunned people and ruined their lives for saying reasonable or true things? That is very incorrect and there is a mountain of evidence for this.
Your original claim that “Freedom of speech is by definition freedom from consequence for speech” is simply impossible to implement without limiting someone else’s freedom of speech, as well as their right to ownership over private property.
There’s no such thing as “freedom from consequences” for anything you do, including speech.
If you’re going to make wild claims please substantiate them.
How does person A saying things result in person B being unable to say things or own private property?
Consequence of insulting the business that employs you is that you’ll get fired. To limit the consequences here is to restrict the property rights of the business to hire and fire the individuals they hire.
More realistic scenario, if you’re an insufferable person spewing nonsense all day, people in your social circle (and those near you physically) will distance themselves from you. That’s the natural consequence of anti-social behavior.
There is no speech without consequence. To have speech without consequence is to expect cause without effect.
Yes, and I believe businesses have too much power over people. I’m 100% okay with restricting the rights of businesses to protect workers. And we already do this for a lot of things, like you can’t fire a woman because she got pregnant, etc. This is not a new concept.
True, but the concept of freedom of speech is that we should try to protect people’s rights to say things. It’s impossible to make everything 100% fine to say without consequences, but saying “who cares if businesses trample your rights” is going in the complete wrong direction.
The fediverse it’s not the US
I never said it was? My entire point is that the concept of freedom of speech is not just one united states law.