Squabbles, another recent reddit alternative, seems to be taking the doomed "free speech" path

Reddit Migration @kbin.social

0 16

You're viewing a single thread.

281 comments

The phrase "free speech platform" sounds like a giant, enormous dog whistle. Which is a damn shame, because I used to enjoy that place, and now I'm not sure I will anymore... Don't want to jump to conclusions, but is there ANY self-described "bastion of free speech on the internet" that is not a cesspool full of awful people? Just one?
I'm a white, heterosexual cis male in my 40s not living in the US, so this does not affect me in any way, shape or form directly, but it still feels just icky, unnecessary and tone-deaf. Guess I'll post photos of my succulents and my goofy dog just on Lemmy from now on, bummer...
- I think it is a dog whistle , here in India there are people who openly talk of genocide , homophobia and what not and call it their right to speech and expression !
  
  The "funny" thing is that the moment those people have power they don't have a problem going against free speech (see having books banned (in the US) or trying to stop people from voicing their opinion (Meloni in Italy))
  It's all just exploiting the tolerance of the system in order to make it less tolerant That's why completely unchecked free speech is a bad idea as it will eventually lead in its complete demise
  
  I mean that is literally what a right to free speech means, so they're not wrong.
  
  That way yall can let nazi shit going and call it freedom of speech , murder is also freedom of expression in a way then ?
  
  No, not at all. Murder is an action that is illegal. Saying something isn't, no matter how much you disagree with it. I don't like people saying racist stuff, but I'm certainly not of the belief that they shouldn't be allowed to say it.
  
  Now imagine people holding hate speech conferences where they gather and talk about cleaning the population (a dogwhistle to genocide) I wonder if that is ok ! And the riots that happen coz of the radicalised masses ?
  
  And the riots that happen coz of the radicalised masses ?
  Aren't these called "mostly peaceful protests" now? Or is that only when it's your "side" that's doing the rioting?
- is there ANY self-described “bastion of free speech on the internet” that is not a cesspool full of awful people? Just one?
  No, because awful people congregate wherever they are tolerated.
- is there ANY self-described “bastion of free speech on the internet” that is not a cesspool full of awful people
  When you have a "free speech" policy, you attract principled free-speech advocates who want to discuss issues rather than shouting down unpopular opinions, a few people who are well-behaved and intelligent but write about ideas that the majority may find offensive or horrifying, and a whole bunch of people who got banned everywhere else for being rude and disruptive.
  The best-moderated such place that I've seen had a policy requiring politeness and high-effort posts, which kept out the third group.
  The second group can be tough to tolerate. Sometimes they're interesting, sometimes they're a Holocaust denier who cites references, and you look up those references and they appear to be real papers written by real academics, and you know this is all wrong but you're not a historian and even if you were you don't have time to address every issue in this guy's entire life's work and you just wish the topic never came up. But you can't keep out the second group unless you compromise your principles as a member of the first group.
  
  This is a great overview of the benefits and problems of free speech platforms without the immediate nosedive into the dogwhistle argument that seems to just be used as a thought/discussion stopper more than anything else lately.
  I feel that it's vitally important that free speech spaces exist. Places to discuss "ideas that the majority may find offensive or horrifying" are important, but they aren't for everyone and they do by their nature offer spaces for "undesirable" people like holocaust deniers.
  
  Exactly, and as long as the platform provides ways to ignore people like holocaust deniers, holocaust deniers should be allowed on the platform.
  I hate racists, but I don't want all racists to be banned from Lemmy/Twitter/Facebook/etc. I want them to be able to share their opinions on there, in large part because I can then challenge their ideas and opinions. If I feel that they're being disingenuous, arguing in bad faith, and start name calling etc I can just block them and move on. That is how places like this should work IMO. That is what "free speech" advocates want.
  I don't believe there should be ANY restrictions on what people can say on here as long as it isn't illegal. No one should be getting banned or censored for sharing their opinions IMO.
  
  But you can’t keep out the second group unless you compromise your principles as a member of the first group.
  The thing is that you don't need to and shouldn't "keep them out". What you should do is just let people ignore/block/mute them.
  
  How do you prevent such a platform to turn into an environment that is actively hostile towards the people they "nicely discuss" should be dead / subjugated / tortured / etc.?
  Or do you think it is okay to drive out certain types of people? How is that still considered "free speech" if those people's voices will be completely missing from the platform?
  
  You let people self moderate. Once you block a user you don't see them anymore.
  How is that still considered “free speech” if those people’s voices will be completely missing from the platform?
  It's free speech because they're allowed to post there. Them choosing not to because they can't handle other people being allowed to exercise their free speech is a them problem, not the platforms problem.
  
  Considering the original movement for free speech it is rather cynical to think it's freedom to silence people. But that's what people are doing when they create an environment that is so hostile towards certain groups of people that these people won't participate. Freedom to communicate hate speech is creating an echo chamber, not a free speech platform.
  
  The problem is when one side is calling everything they disagree with “hate speech” and banning everyone that even questions it.
  Individuals blocking people isn’t “silencing” them. It’s not infringing on free speech.
  It’s funny that you mention an echo chamber when this heavy handed Moderation and censorship is literally making one. When you only allow one viewpoint and ban all the others you’re literally making an echo chamber. You guys want an echo chamber, just one that echos your viewpoint.
- I misread that as you describing your dog as succulent.
  
  That was some awkward English, fixed it now :)
  
  It's all good, I think I just needed to read more slowly!
- Why bummer? It's a great place so far in my opinion. The people are so much friendlier here.
  
  More good options is always a good thing.
  
  True, Squabbles just felt better suited than Lemmy to short, no context random posts and photos. Might be all in my head though :)
- Like someone else said in another comment, I'm sure everybody on the left agree with the concept of free speech. So IMHO the real question is, why is it the case that platforms advocating free speech attract right wingers and extremists?
  
  Because the left does not approve of hate speech, which is what right wingers immediately rush to spew whenever they see freeze peach.
  
  People confuse free speech with freedom to harass and driving people out. When 90 % of a site (as an example) are antisemitic rants and antisemitic memes Jews are actively driven out of the place. You actually make a place less free by allowing discrimatory content. People have to potentially hide their identity or have to endure constant hostility. In consequence you are removing their voices from the platform.
  I guess most "people on the left" would agree that you can create such a platform for yourself and your buddies but do not call it "free speech" when in reality it just creates a venting platform for a certain type of people.
  
  I’m sure everybody on the left agree with the concept of free speech
  Not sure if serious......?
- Yo dog, I gotta know. Where are you posting those succulent pics?! I've been missing r/Succulents since the blackout.
  
  Mostly !succulents@midwest.social and sometimes !cactus@sh.itjust.works for cacti (hope I'm linking it correctly).
  
  Thank you!
- but is there ANY self-described “bastion of free speech on the internet” that is not a cesspool full of awful people? Just one?
  The thing is that you're just calling people that you disagree with "awful people" because they have different opinions. They also think you're awful for the same reason.
  People need to get away from this idea that people shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions and ideas. I'm all for completely unrestricted free speech. Let racist people spew their racist hateful garbage - but let people call them out on it. Let people try to change their mind. Let people show them exactly how they're being a piece of shit.
  All you have to do is give people options to block/mute people and you can take care of it yourself. What I hate is when people call for censoring and banning of differing opinions on a platform level.
  
  That is not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that every single online platform that I know that describes itself as a "free speech platform/bastion/zone/whatever" gets sooner or later filled to the brim with people spouting vile, deplorable and often violent rhetoric.
  I can discuss a lot of things and accept, understand or at least tolerate a lot of opinions differing from mine, but things like "black people are sub-human", "gays should be killed" or "preschoolers can be sexy"* are NOT in that group. And these types of comments are inevitably what naming your site a "free speech platform" attracts in my experience. I think there is no way to discuss (or even just utter) them in good faith, and yes, I do consider people holding such beliefs to be awful - it's not like I’m trying to use the term lightly or to denote folks who like different pizza toppings or TV shows than I do...
  
  My point is that just because you can't tolerate them it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to be presented. Like I said - give people the ability to block/mute people and let them self moderate what content they interact with and see. You don't like people saying "black people are sub human" and don't want to have a conversation with them to point out why they're wrong etc? Cool, block them. Problem solved.
  I will discuss anything with anyone. I'll happily debate a racist to try and show them why they're wrong and being a piece of shit. I'll debate a flat earther to show them the facts that prove the earth is round. If/when the racist starts name calling and being disingenous I'll call them out on it and if they double down I simply block them - that's what I've done in this very thread when some guy started name calling and becoming abusive when we were 6 comments deep each in conversation. I disagreed with their viewpoint, but I would never want their ability to give their viewpoint to be taken away. Once it became clear that they were not interested in an actual discussion and just resorted to name calling, I simply blocked them and "walk away".
  That is what free speech advocates want. Just because you're offended by something it doesn't mean it should be censored or banned. As Ricky Gervais said:
  "I want people to stop saying that joke's offensive. I want them to start saying "I found it offensive" because that's all that it is. You're just telling me how you feel about it."

281 comments