Comment on A List of Social Media Platforms that Still Permit Free-Speech
nyan@lemmy.cafe 2 weeks ago
Anyone who thinks you can have both absolutely no restraint on speech and an environment that isn’t a cesspit hasn’t seen what humans do in an environment that has absolutely no restraint on speech. Constructive discourse requires that there be someone to moderate and throw out the trolls, the spammers, and that guy who, wherever he goes, preaches about the effect of weather conditions inside the hollow earth on the lizardmen who select US presidential candidates.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 2 weeks ago
The only real moderation that needs to happen is self moderation. If you see someone saying stuff that you don’t like, block them. That persons opinions are now gone for all that matters to you. There’s boo need for their opinions to be removed for everyone. Everyone has the capabilities to moderate their own experience.
If someone keeps being racist and it bothers you, block them. If someone keeps name calling and it bothers you, block them. Those of us who aren’t bothered by opinions we don’t agree with or by people saying things we don’t like can still engage with those people and perhaps even teach (or learn!) something.
There should be very few restrictions on speech, especially in an online forum/community, imo, restricted basically only for trying to incite or threatening actual physical harm.
nyan@lemmy.cafe 2 weeks ago
Dude, apparently unlike you, I remember Usenet, which uses precisely the sort of system you’re describing, in its heyday. That means I’ve also seen discussion groups implode because they couldn’t get rid of a single bad actor. Killfiles alone aren’t enough, even when combined with community naming-and-shaming. Someone always lacks self-restraint and engages. That encourages the bad actor(s). They post more, often using multiple sockpuppets to get around people’s killfiles and flood out legitimate discussion. Newcomers to the group see masses of bad actor spam and fail to stick around. The lack of new blood kills the group.
Self-moderation simply doesn’t work. Yes, bad moderation happens and I’ve seen plenty of examples. But no overarching moderation is also the kiss of death.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 2 weeks ago
I remember Usenet, in fact I still use it to this very day.
If people want to engage with the “bad actor” then that’s their right.
You know what also makes new people not stick around? Over zealous moderation, especially when it’s clearly biased towards maintaining an echo chamber. More and more people are waking up to the fact that censorship is getting out of control, especially on social media sites, and they don’t like it.
Given self moderation and overarching and overbearing moderation are both the kiss of death, the one where a few people control the whole thing and direct the echo chamber is the more destructive imo.