sudoreboot

joined 1 year ago
1
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

In the context of recent comments^[1]^^[2]^ made by the admin, I feel the need to bring up some thoughts I have on the relationships between free speech, moderation, impartiality and social issues.

For a start, I need to point out that science -- the study and exploration of the unknown -- is wrought with politics and social biases. Science could not be conducted without the exchange and preservation of information. Consider the endpoints and media of these exchanges of information. Humans preserve knowledge by storing it within their minds and/or inscribing it onto external media, and then communicating to others how and where to extract this information through social interactions.

Humans are biased and prone to irrationality. We know this. We know that biases dictate the rules and dynamics of social interaction, and that irrationality feeds into the formation of biases and vice versa. There is no such thing as an objective mind or impartial act; at best it is ignorance that counteracts one's biases, and this is how we try to conduct science. But we can not get any science done by only ever making blind choices in the interest of impartiality and fairness. We have to use moral judgement and intuition in order to make choices. What to research; how to interpret partial data; what conclusions to draw based on limited knowledge; how to even draw conclusions; what questions to ask; what answers to expect; what methods to use; whose interest to serve while prioritising.

The notion that you can just "be rational" and "stick to the science" is misguided. It prevents us from identifying our blindspots and biases. Recognising and acknowledging our limitations in perspective and understanding is vital to our efforts to deepen and widen our understanding of -- and existence within -- the natural world.

Let's consider what this means for members of a community such as this instance. When you are exposed to information -- whether misleading, false, essential or true -- what dictates your response to it is primarily a non-conscious process involving emotions, cognitive/physical state, innate primal instincts, etc. Your ability to reason only ever presents itself after your brain has interpreted the input signals and triggered an autonomic response. For many people, the non-conscious process can in some cases negatively affect their mental or even physical state in a very real and serious way (due to implications, extrapolations or associations of certain types of information - could be tragedy/gore/harassment or more complex triggers), often preventing them from dealing with it in a healthy and constructive manner. It's more nuanced than simply having or not having a (C-)PTSD diagnosis, and it is no one else's business to judge whether a person's inner experience is valid or that they should "suck it up" and "learn to deal with it". Unless one is an anti-social prick who thinks "survival of the fittest" makes for an excellent slogan and moral basis for a healthy society, of course.

Let's now consider how this relates to moderators of a community. If someone is responding negatively to some piece of information, one would do well to reflect upon why that may be, and what, if anything, can be reasonably done to prevent that. It is the task a moderator should be concerned with, so that they can form a basis for judgement. Sometimes a person can't be helped; sometimes it isn't in a group's interest to even attempt to fix a person's personal issues. But it is worth considering the implications when making a choice in who to accommodate. The choice may be passive or active. The former could be letting each person moderate their own experience; the latter could be defederating from instances that only contribute negatively to your community.

So, who should we accommodate? The anti-social extremist lashing out, ranting about conspiracies at anyone who will listen? Do you listen in the hope that it makes them (and.. you?) better people or do you shut the door to spare the rest of the room?

What about the trans person ranting about frequent harassment? Do you listen and consider their situation or do you let them figure it out on their own?

What about the autistic science nerd that gets upset over systematic disinformation and pseudoscientific posts populating their feed (and, by induction, everyone else's)? Do you crack down on those posters or let the nerds fight their own battle in the free marketplace of ideas (I mean, they're the rational ones with science on their side so they would surely win - sorry, had to sneak in a bit of diatribe)?

What purpose does unconditional (barring illegal conduct and spam) federation serve this instance? Who in this place appreciates the content and values sported by the people over at exploding-heads (for reasons other than absolute principles of freedom)? Forget breaking rules or laws; what potential value does a hypothetical Nazi or religious extremist group bring to this place? In whose interest is this instance acting when making (in)decisions about what other platforms are free to interact with (or at) us?

How do we expect this place to evolve over time as people who appreciate the moderation style here trickle in and remain active while people who are uncomfortable with it slowly evaporate?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is cool! Typing with it right now. Have been hoping to see an innovation like this for a long time. (Maybe some proprietary products have come and gone but non-free software doesn't exist to me unless I really can't afford to abstain)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It hasn't been updated in like a year and there is no spell correction. Am I missing something or is this just an acceptable tradeoff for you?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I didn't watch this video but I suspect the sentiment is similar to Sabine's (I highly recommend her channel)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I don't know if I solved it by disabling and re-enabling the repo but that's one of the things I tried and later I could see it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I never used Discord but used google hangouts before switching to Telegram and Matrix (the former for family and the latter for everything else).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

No, only comments made after they refederate

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I don't disagree. I want to see topic aggregation as soon as possible too.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My comment was in response to the implication that people who exercise their right to not listen to everyone talking are using defederation as some sort of weapon to fulfil their chaotic, destructive agenda while free-speech instances are merely open to any and all interactions like exemplary participants in a civilised democratic society.

If you actually want to know what my perspective is, I just wrote about it: https://mander.xyz/post/739439

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't think of the threadiverse as a link aggregation platform but as a network of communities engaging in threaded discussion. The federated model is an answer to the problem of platform lock-in, the network effect, and the lack of autonomy communities have on proprietary/commercial/centralised platforms.

Each instance separately may fill the role of link aggregator but mainly for that community (instance), with that community's values and moderation policies. The ability for an instance to federate with other instances with compatible policies is the benefit here.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Without the possibility of creating a meta layer to let users group different communities into a single feed

This isn't an intrinsic limitation of the protocol but a matter of UX, and given how frequently it is requested it's bound to be implemented in some way by some project; if not Lemmy then maybe kbin or something new that crops up.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

the free side, that talks with everyone

the side that talks at everyone and gets mad when people exercise their freedom from listening to everyone

view more: next ›