Are you complaining about Lemmy or Reddit?
Comment on [deleted]
BigBlackCockroach@lemmy.world 10 months agoSo you are saying reddit isn’t plagued by behaviour where people basically pile onto diverging (albeit legitimate) opinions?
CaptObvious@literature.cafe 10 months ago
GhostsAreShitty@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I’m saying that the opinions that people piled onto were generally worth piling onto. If the things you say garner a negative response everywhere you go, maybe it’s not everyone else who’s the problem.
Eheran@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I have no idea if this is/was “generally” the case. Go into any sub that is pro or anti anything and say something reasonable that does not fit that pro or anti sentiment. Good luck. People downvote things usually not based on logical thinking but feelings.
GhostsAreShitty@lemmy.world 10 months ago
That’s true. But a space that is pro or anti something isn’t a space that’s going to be protected by any semblance of “free speech.” It’s not a fault of the community, it’s by design that they want people of a similar mindset. Wanting to guarantee “free speech” in a space like that defeats the purpose of those spaces.
Eheran@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I fully agree. Free speech is something else entirely.
Both state driven information filtering as well as people letting their emotions loose creates bubbles in which people are misinformed. They think X is a really big problem, while it could actually only seem so because of that bubble. And the other way around too, of course. Anyone pointing errors out is massively outnumbered, no chance.
Thinking about it, I think religion works the same way. Just not with random people on the internet but in the local community, where it is even harder to escape that bubble.
BigBlackCockroach@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Oh come on you know this isn’t true!
On numerous reddit communities there was a very slim overton window and if you say something that is totally a reasonable thing to say you but diverges from the consensus you get downvoted to oblivion and sometimes even mods take action. You know this is true. Don’t believe me google it. Otherwise I’m going to assume you are not arguing in good faith.
GhostsAreShitty@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from consequences for your speech. Your definition of “reasonable” doesn’t sound like it’s reasonable by the consensus of users on Reddit. It seems like you’ve been fairly gun shy about posting what these “legitimate opinions” are. On Reddit, I would get in arguments with liberals a lot, because I consider them entirely too right leaning. But it never resulted in mod action or even downvoting, it was a discussion. There is one kind of opinion that pretty consistently resulted in downvoting, and especially mod action. And those kinds of opinions should be downvoted. The only things I can think of otherwise are people criticizing mods or Reddit itself and getting banned by power hungry admins, but as others have said, go to a different community if you see that.
BigBlackCockroach@lemmy.world 10 months ago
It is when it comes to the consequence being not being able to speak. if my speech has at its consequence that it pisses off people in power in a group then freedom of speech means that they wont stifle my speech when it threatens their power or is deemed undesirable for other than rule breaking reasons.
ZahzenEclipse@kbin.social 10 months ago
Thats not a very good argument at all. You're literally stating "well since majority agrees with it, it must mean somethings wrong with you." How could possibly think this is healthy or goodm
GhostsAreShitty@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I’m saying on Reddit in particular, the comments that got downvoted into oblivion were generally of a certain variety, and OP is being very cagey about what they mean. And again, a community forms around common belief, and “free speech” doesn’t protect your inclusivity into a space, it only protects you from government action against your speech.
ZahzenEclipse@kbin.social 10 months ago
Anything that broke the "echochamber" is what got downvoted but this was never strictly about downvoting it was about moderation so im not sure why you shifted the focus to downvotes. We know you're trying to essentially say the people who got downvoted or moderated deserved it because they said things so "bad" they deserved to be moderated. I'm not sure that's always true or even mostly true.
You're right that free speech typically means the ability to speak freely without government intervention but I think you're being obtuse if you don't see how those implications could be limited by corporations online and if you're comfortable with censorship online not being democratically decided upon that's cool but I don't trust the corporations as much as you do i guess.