gemini://bbs.geminispace.org/u/aRubes/4786

@naf I partly agree. The general sentiment I agree with. However, there are cases where as a moderator myself I just have to choose which population would be under the inclusivity umbrella. I'll give you a benign example to illustrate the point:

On a platform where I moderate we had a comfy existence for years until a massive immigrant wave from Twitter arrived. We were almost exclusively 30 to 40 something hetero men with the same leftist political leanings more or less. We still decided concensually that politics in the public feed would be kept under a content warning due to some of the members experiencing PTSD from police violence and their own compulsary army service.

With the flood, these topics suddenly appear in large numbers without any warnings. New people didn't read the rules or didn't understand them. Old people got triggered and some of them fled, never to return. They had no chance to mute before it happened and it took us 2-3 weeks to finally educate the newcomers. New people don't understand the weird rules, object and blame us for censoring them. We did not push them out, just limited their ability on specific feeds. Is that censorship of their ideaology ? yes it is, but I am proud of it. We protected our suffering friends from people who did not repsect the rules.

Another simple example: Some Jewish supremacists (followers of Meir Kahane, supporting genocidal moves against non-jews) joined and immediately started terrorizing the entire place. We immediately banned them. Tolerating their ideaology until everyone muted them would have been absurd

It's unfortunate that the real life rules of social encounters for some reason have not made it to the net.

In real life if you repeatedly walk up to strangers and start loudly proclaiming your most sacred beliefs to them, you will be shunned and probably eventually locked up. It's just not okay. Everyone gets it.

On social media we have a bit the opposite, you're expected to have an opinion and to let everyone know how you stand. Discretion, politeness--nah. But I don't really see why. Who benefits?

I try to think of everyone I interact with online as a person; and if they're struggling, to remember what a crazy medium it is for interaction, and assume the best. Simultaneously with that I keep an eye on my own interests, backing off if it's too much. Is it worth it? Around here, yes :) so far anyway.

Again, declaring that only fascists infringe on others' freedoms is dangerous. Not to defend fascists, but left rhetoric is outrageously oppressive quite often. And as I mentioned earlier, anyone who doesn't repeat the mantra is labeled 'fascist'. I also find it amusing that the word 'fascist' is tossed about without people even admitting that we are indeed talking about left and right politics.

I don't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't describe anyone as fascist until they get dangerously full of patriotism and blindly go along with persecuting minorities. Unfortunately that does in fact describe a political movement in the US right now. Interestingly, my ideology lines up in most ways with the libertarians, but I'm just not ok with taking away hard won protections for lgbtq people who obviously needed them, rolling back Roe v Wade and banning books in order to protect (control) the children, which is what the party claiming to represent the libertarians has been up to.

Can other groups also attack our rights? Of course they can, and have, and will. But right now, this year, there is one political movement that is by far the worst culprit. If you don't see that by now I think you're probably trying hard not to.

I agree with @flipperzero comments. Unfortunately, I see a lot of the same type of discourse in this thread as I have seen elsewhere on the net: speaking in broad generalities to the point at which it has no meaning, whatabout-ism, both sides rhetoric etc. these discussion tactics do nothing to contribute to the conversation. one thing to remember is that there is no "censorship" here, we are not governments and we all have the agency to ignore, block, or ban on the software that we personally operate.

BBS has a great feature: 'mute thread'. It's a good way to keep yourself out of a discussion that triggers you. Muting individuals is the next step, but I try to avoid it as very often people have many interesting things to contribute but have a pet peeve that makes them annoying. (I am no saint here, although I belive that my personal experience of being bullied into silence is entirely relevant)

@stack This is a good solution for most people, not all. As my example illustrated clearly, muting does not help you when you suffer from PTSD and you stumble upon a triggering post from a new user or a new post subject from a previously non-muted person that you follow

Sometimes I realize I need to pull back and read instead of write. Same thing happens in verbal conversations. I'm not always good at it.

My point is that even when you very strongly disagree with someone, there is often value in giving yourself time, and in attempting to understand context and their point of view. To do otherwise causes things to get heated much too quickly.

We had a situation involving multiple people on Gemini not long ago where I think a number of us, myself included, let things get too heated. It's obvious there's still some hard feelings. I pulled myself back from posting for a while. I think that did me some good.

If you're reading this and you know what I'm talking about, and you were part of it, here's an olive branch. The fact that I didn't mute you means I still think you have something valuable to say.

@aRubes, I think I understand. However there is an argument to be made that if you suffer from PTSD and are easily triggered by things people say online, being online is not a healthy way to spend your time.

Instead of petitioning the Net to accomodate the weakest link, you should perhaps find a nice quiet place with lots of therapy and massage, at least until you are ready to rejoin the sometimes unruly real world.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with setting up spaces with specific rules, prohibiting certain kinds of intercourse. Or asking people nicely to stay off certain topics.

The problem is that IRL you talk to a limited number of people at a time, and saying things takes very little time after which no one can hear you! So you can say stupid things, at the risk of offending no one or maybe a few people around you (if you can't read your audience)

Typing crap into a social network makes your words available to everyone who bothers to read it, kind of forever. Eventually, it is bound to annoy someone, and the drama starts. And then, someone 'discovers' it again, and the drama starts all over.

The Internet ought to interpret censorship as damage and route around it. It has not been functioning like that for a little while now. If you’re interested in big-I Internet instead of firewalled lowercase-i internets, this is not a controversial idea.

I know that I disagree with a lot of people in Geminispace, but I would never advocate for those who I disagree with to lose their hosting providers or the ability to speak their mind. Obviously a hosting provider can choose to refuse service and ban whoever they want to.

'Instead of petitioning the Net to accomodate the weakest link, you should perhaps find a nice quiet place with lots of therapy and massage, at least until you are ready to rejoin the sometimes unruly real world.'

Re: refuge for harmful ideas — I saw just saw this [gemini link] outstanding post from DaintyEco about certain spaces including Gemini, I believe, attracting certain kinds of people who we should be aware of. In particular, I find this quote reflects a lot of my online experience (of 25+ years) we should all be aware of the tolerance paradox at this point, and that tolerating specific extreme views can drive...

Comment by 🦥 aRubes

12 Later Comments ↓

Original Post