I run my own instance so that i can take a little control over the drivel that scrolls past my eyes. Far right ideologies don’t deserve a platform or an audience.
Yeah, free speech simply means that you won’t get arrested for being an asshole. It doesn’t mean you’re entitled to be bigoted on a service someone else is hosting. This could be a single person hosting a pet as a hobby, or a corporation at a large scale. It doesn’t matter as long as it’s a third-party that you don’t own.
If people want to be jerks on purpose without others getting involved, they can find their own place to share ideas or host a service themselves. And if they don’t like people challenging their ideas, they can block them too, because they have that right on their own stuff.
Some people believe that hate and discrimination is the new normal and should be condoned by everyone. If it’s a religion thing, perhaps they should reconsider what aspects of “blind” is important in blind faith? Regardless, it’s incredible how people find these unfounded hills to die on.
Besides, their hate is directed towards what’s fashionable at the time. “Owning slaves” and “owning women” was once something people fought for. Later, when human rights started getting voted into law, their disagreement started to be expressed through bigotry.
But now that society doesn’t have much room to be racist or sexist, they are migrating to other groups they don’t like. Did they generally decide that they were wrong about their previously-targeted groups? And they’re positive that the new groups are the right groups to hate? Or perhaps some people just have a chip on their shoulder and want to hate using whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to validate themselves?
Regardless, social media is just a way for people to talk to each other, hosted by a person or a group. In terms of what’s allowed to be said, technology is irrelevant. If someone invites you to dinner for the first time, and you’re blatantly racist, you’ll probably get kicked out. Social media, hosted by others, presents exactly the same set of circumstances, no matter if your voice goes through a webserver and a database first or not.
Fascism isn’t an ideology that gets defeated in the marketplace of ideas. It’s core belief is enabling a small minority to violently destroy other lives. It’s not worth your consideration.
It’s the deciding which ones are worthless that gets dangerous
Not making a decision is in and of itself a decision. Saying ‘Nazis deserve a voice because everyone deserves a voice’ removes the voice of minorities because Nazis murder and oppress minorities. There is a decision that has to be made somewhere. Saying ‘everyone deserves a voice and Nazis deserve a platform!’ is limiting the voice of minorities.
Sure. In authoritarian states, it’s common to outlaw “lies” about the government, where the government essentially gets to define what a lie is. The United States has its history with such laws in the Alien and Sedition Act in the late 18th century. In more modern times, you see things like Russia outlawing “lies” about the Russo-Ukraine War (including calling it a war). And by lies, I mean anything that does not match Russia’s “everything is fine” narrative. There’s also Poland banning discussion of Nazi collaboration by Poles in 2018.
I definitely separate that from things like deplatforming. Both people and companies should have freedom of association when it comes to political opinions. They should never be forced to support speech that they disagree with.
None of them. Lemmy instances defederating are the epitome of another freedom, freedom of association. People should be able to choose who and who not to associate with without interference from the government.
Idk, gonna be a very hot take, but I like my beliefs challenged and believe that everyone deserves a voice
Nazis had a voice once, and folks listened to them. And we ended up with the Holocaust.
Might be controversial but I don’t believe that people who want to murder minorities deserve a voice. I feel like that’s a pretty reasonable bar to set lol.
Might be controversial but I don’t believe that people who want to murder minorities deserve a voice. I feel like that’s a pretty reasonable bar to set lol.
It’s not controversial at all. The only people making “controversy” out of it are the ones who are mad they can’t spew hate
The problem is, this isn’t just a challenge to beliefs. This is the internet. The darkest most depraved shit that can exist… does. People forcing children to do things with animals… I’ll stop there…
The U.S. constitution supports free speech. Even it has limits. You can’t yell fire in a movie theater and not face the consequences of injuries your speech causes.
The world came together in WWII and decided that Nazis didn’t deserve a place at the table. There’s a difference between “let’s decide whose economic policy is more useful now” and “hey I want everyone to have a nice life and these guys think a large chunk of the world doesn’t deserve to live at all.”
you like it when “other people should be treated as people as a bare minimum” is getting challenged? because that’s the belief that your average xeno-/homo-/transphobic asshole challenges. Many beliefs I have ought to be challenged on the regular, but not THAT one
I run my own instance so that i can take a little control over the drivel that scrolls past my eyes. Far right ideologies don’t deserve a platform or an audience.
Yeah, free speech simply means that you won’t get arrested for being an asshole. It doesn’t mean you’re entitled to be bigoted on a service someone else is hosting. This could be a single person hosting a pet as a hobby, or a corporation at a large scale. It doesn’t matter as long as it’s a third-party that you don’t own.
If people want to be jerks on purpose without others getting involved, they can find their own place to share ideas or host a service themselves. And if they don’t like people challenging their ideas, they can block them too, because they have that right on their own stuff.
Some people believe that hate and discrimination is the new normal and should be condoned by everyone. If it’s a religion thing, perhaps they should reconsider what aspects of “blind” is important in blind faith? Regardless, it’s incredible how people find these unfounded hills to die on.
Besides, their hate is directed towards what’s fashionable at the time. “Owning slaves” and “owning women” was once something people fought for. Later, when human rights started getting voted into law, their disagreement started to be expressed through bigotry.
But now that society doesn’t have much room to be racist or sexist, they are migrating to other groups they don’t like. Did they generally decide that they were wrong about their previously-targeted groups? And they’re positive that the new groups are the right groups to hate? Or perhaps some people just have a chip on their shoulder and want to hate using whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to validate themselves?
Regardless, social media is just a way for people to talk to each other, hosted by a person or a group. In terms of what’s allowed to be said, technology is irrelevant. If someone invites you to dinner for the first time, and you’re blatantly racist, you’ll probably get kicked out. Social media, hosted by others, presents exactly the same set of circumstances, no matter if your voice goes through a webserver and a database first or not.
How do yoy feel about far left ideologies?
Evergreen meme:
Considering it’s their own instance, it doesn’t matter.
Love ‘em!
Imagine thinking far left and far right are equivalent.
Right wing extremists burn people alive, while left wing extremists burn cars.
Obviously the latter is far worse as it could be my car but I don’t own any humans.
pretty based ngl
Removed by mod
Deserving a voice is in no way the same as deserving an audience.
Fascism isn’t an ideology that gets defeated in the marketplace of ideas. It’s core belief is enabling a small minority to violently destroy other lives. It’s not worth your consideration.
I agree with this, but some beliefs are well… utterly stupid and not worth reconsidering. It’s a waste of time really.
It’s the deciding which ones are worthless that gets dangerous, particularly when “worthless” involves prison sentences.
Not making a decision is in and of itself a decision. Saying ‘Nazis deserve a voice because everyone deserves a voice’ removes the voice of minorities because Nazis murder and oppress minorities. There is a decision that has to be made somewhere. Saying ‘everyone deserves a voice and Nazis deserve a platform!’ is limiting the voice of minorities.
Could you clarify?
Sure. In authoritarian states, it’s common to outlaw “lies” about the government, where the government essentially gets to define what a lie is. The United States has its history with such laws in the Alien and Sedition Act in the late 18th century. In more modern times, you see things like Russia outlawing “lies” about the Russo-Ukraine War (including calling it a war). And by lies, I mean anything that does not match Russia’s “everything is fine” narrative. There’s also Poland banning discussion of Nazi collaboration by Poles in 2018.
I definitely separate that from things like deplatforming. Both people and companies should have freedom of association when it comes to political opinions. They should never be forced to support speech that they disagree with.
Which Lemmy instance was it that suspended Habeas Corpus?
None of them. Lemmy instances defederating are the epitome of another freedom, freedom of association. People should be able to choose who and who not to associate with without interference from the government.
Nazis had a voice once, and folks listened to them. And we ended up with the Holocaust.
Might be controversial but I don’t believe that people who want to murder minorities deserve a voice. I feel like that’s a pretty reasonable bar to set lol.
It’s not controversial at all. The only people making “controversy” out of it are the ones who are mad they can’t spew hate
The problem is, this isn’t just a challenge to beliefs. This is the internet. The darkest most depraved shit that can exist… does. People forcing children to do things with animals… I’ll stop there…
The U.S. constitution supports free speech. Even it has limits. You can’t yell fire in a movie theater and not face the consequences of injuries your speech causes.
You in fact can yell fire in a theater without being arrested. It depends on the context (and weather or not there where injuries)
If the play calls for it and an actor says it. Or more simply if the theater is on fire.
With speech laws it matters more what the context is to the intended audience than what is specifically said.
Did I not mention being responsible for injuries? Your absolutely right, but you’re not correct…
Go test your theory out, I’ll be waiting for a reply.
I will next time I’m in a theater that is on fire.
It’s actually a limp ice cold take that’s been debated to death
The world came together in WWII and decided that Nazis didn’t deserve a place at the table. There’s a difference between “let’s decide whose economic policy is more useful now” and “hey I want everyone to have a nice life and these guys think a large chunk of the world doesn’t deserve to live at all.”
@kityr @borlax on the fediverse we ban the “nazis deserve a voice” types
you like it when “other people should be treated as people as a bare minimum” is getting challenged? because that’s the belief that your average xeno-/homo-/transphobic asshole challenges. Many beliefs I have ought to be challenged on the regular, but not THAT one