Beehaw is a community of individuals and therefore does not have any specific political affiliation. At this point in time, we do not know what the political leanings of most of our users are. I would suspect that many of them would identify as progressive because we are explicitly a safe space for minorities. What we stand for and the space that we're trying to make is compatible with many forms of politics. Unfortunately some political groups build themselves around and choose to elevate or tolerate hate speech. These are the only political groups that we are incompatible with. If any of it was unclear in any of the other posts, I will restate it all here. Beehaw does not tolerate hate speech. Beehaw is an explicitly safe space. We center and promote kindness because that is what we see and love in the world.
Some of the instances that we have chosen to defederate with have explicit political stances and ideologies. Their political stance and ideology had nothing to do with the choice to defederate. The choice to defederate was based on the amount of hate speech present on the instance and/or explicitly endorsing it. Since hate speech is not controlled on the instances that these users come from, we cannot expect them to change their behavior when participating on our instance. While users may exist on some of these platforms who do not spread hate speech, the choice to defederate is made to reduce the burden on our moderators and admins. Occasionally these instances or users from these instances will point their fingers at Beehaw and make claims about our political leanings or whether certain kinds of politics are banned. To be explicitly clear, the only kind of politics that are banned here are those which enable hate speech such as fascism.
Politics on the internet
Many, if not most discussions of politics on the internet are poisoned by virtue signaling. When they are not poisoned by virtue signaling, discussions are often just ways to vent emotions. I believe the reason for this is the platforms themselves and the incentives to engage online. On the internet I can adjust my level of anonymity. An adjustable level of anonymity allows me to change how I speak to others while simultaneously mitigating or removing any consequences to myself. This of course varies based on the platform and what I'm attempting to accomplish, but in the context of speaking with others on the internet, I can be relatively consequence free to say whatever I want on most major platforms. Particularly negative or hateful behavior might cause me to be banned off of a platform, but through the use of technology or other means, I can simply create another account (or migrate to another platform) and continue the same speech. In malicious terms, I do not have to worry about managing someone else's emotions or my connection to them.
In real life, on the other hand, it is not as easy to pass myself off as someone else. I must be much more aware of how I speak to others because consequences can be much more dire. When discussing politics with others, I may alienate them or myself and so I may choose to be more open to listen rather than soapboxing. The people I'm interacting with may be a regular part of my life and may be people I have come to respect. Understanding how they think might be vitally important to maintaining or improving our connection.
I am presenting the internet and real life as two ends of a spectrum but it is more complicated than that. There are people who are very visible and tied to their identities on the internet just as there are people in real life who use false identities created to mask their true identity. Interactions vary in level of connection, platform, and who happens to know who we are in other spaces on the internet. There are plenty of people who talk on the internet about politics with the explicit goal of changing the minds of others. Some of these individuals are not using this as an outlet to manage their own emotions. These generalizations are presented in this way because I need to talk about these patterns in the context of the platform Lemmy. I'm asking everyone on this platform to be wary of anyone who focuses on politics but is unable to explain the issues themselves. They are probably trying to deceive you, are virtue signaling, or projecting their own insecurities and you should be skeptical of their approach.
I would encourage all of you to think about incentives when presented with political drama online. It is easy to get engaged because politics has a direct and often scary effect on our lives. In this community, it is not difficult to find individuals who are regularly marginalized by politicians. Especially for these minorities, it is completely valid to get emotionally invested in politics and I would personally encourage doing so on some level, but we need to think carefully about the other parties present in a conversation and whether they are willing to listen or incentivized to do so. For the people who are hiding behind anonymity and posting to vent their emotional frustrations with the system they are likely not invested in the community we are growing here and it may be appropriate and healthy to ignore or disengage with these folks.
Forking
It is in this political context that forking from the main Lemmy development has been presented. People are quick to point to potential upsides of forking, but the upsides are an after thought presented as a means to bolster or justify forking. These justifications are for what is ultimately a moral issue. The question at hand is whether it is moral to use a platform developed by someone who has committed acts which one deems immoral. To anyone posing this question, I would ask them to consider what other technology they use every day and to trace the roots back to each invention along the path to today's day and age. The world has a colonialist history, rife with violence and immoral behavior. Unless you retreat the woods and recreate technologies yourself from scratch, it's impossible to live in a modern society without benefiting from technology built on countless dead bodies in history.
We do not have the technical expertise to create a new tool from scratch - all we can do is leverage tools that already exist to create communities like this. At the time we created this instance, the service we decided on was Lemmy. We did so with awareness of discussions around the politics of the main instance and developers. I think we've done a decent job outlining what we intend to do with this instance and explicitly made strong stances against hate speech and other behavior we do not agree with, including where we disagree with them. When taken in the context of computing in general, these political leanings are also not unique in their social and political harm as compared to some of the tech giants out there. The same is true in comparison to some of the famous tech inventors and innovators; in comparison to the history of computer technology; in comparison to the exploitation and problematic mining of rare earth minerals used in technology; in comparison to the damages we cause to the earth to create the energy used to power our servers. We can follow this path of thinking back all that we want to, and ultimately it's just not a particularly fruitful discussion to zero in on whether the political leaning of the main developers and instance are in perfect alignment with what we want to accomplish. We are not explicitly endorsing their viewpoint by using their software and we are not tied to using this software forever.
I cannot stress enough how much bandwidth has been taken up by these discussions in recent days. It been brought up as frequently as every few hours across Discord, Matrix, inbox replies, comment replies, new threads, and other forms of communication. We're currently dealing with a lot of other issues like keeping the server running, expanding to add more communities, moderating the communities amidst a huge influx of users posting and reply content from other instances, managing expenses, optimizing our server, planning for the future, and so much more. We cannot entertain philosophical discussions on all of the wonderful things we 'could do' when we're struggling to keep up with what we're already currently doing. We have not yet received a serious proposal for a fork which details operational needs when it comes to the maintenance, support, and resources needed to accomplish and maintain it. Simply put we do not believe a fork is necessary at this time.
Honest question: can you define ‘hate speech’? Because in theory I agree it should not be allowed however in practice it generally means ‘political ideas that I disagree with’ are banned under the guise of hate speech rules. There needs to be specific standards clarifying what the rule actually is.
Hypothetical example: am I allowed to take a socially conservative stance on gender-affirming healthcare or would that be considered ‘hate speech’?
Hypothetical example: am I allowed to take a socially conservative stance on gender-affirming healthcare or would that be considered ‘hate speech’?
we're not going to suddenly deviate from doing our One Rule thing and break out a legal contract and definition for what hate speech is and isn't--and frankly, even asking this is already kind of a self-report.[^1] this reply also heavily implies you don't really get why we've structured things the way they are here. as for the other question: if you think that gender-affirming care is wrong or immoral or whatever or that trans people are freaks (because that is basically always the unstated implication of such a belief) then no, this really isn't the instance for you.
[^1]: because let's be very clear: the vast majority of people do not have to ask this question.
What about something like talking about LGBTQ grooming? Like I'm queer, I'm nonbinary, I date other queer nonbinaries, and some of these people have kids, and I've had a nonbinary parent tell me they want their kid to be queer, and I've seen them pressure, and push their kid into Pride events.
A lot of people would consider me expressing myself in the way I just did hate speech, and I've been banned from subreddits for expressing it, which I think is absurd. I should be able to talk about my experiences regardless of the political implications.
Like just typing this I have that anxiety I'm setting myself up for a ban, and I don't think I've don't anything wrong aside from expressing a contrary opinion. I feel a moral imperative to talk about this stuff, it doesn't come out of malice.
this is the most /r/thathappened story we've received so far and you explicitly said you don't want to be here in your first comment, so we'll send you on your way to respect your wishes and help you avoid the True Oppression of "mods trying to control politics" by doing moderation
I think the issue with that is that dog whistles from far right extremists is constantly changing. And to outline an exact rule of what defines hate speech invites people to find loop holes in the rule.
This is just something that you have to trust the community on. And I can understand that sounds way too risky and vague.
I think with things like this, err on the side of caution, be excellent to one another, and keep politics to what you can do rather than what you should do. In my time, the "should do" arguments is where I found most of the division in communities that aught to get along come from. Just my own thoughts though.
Still, if any mods could give their word on the matter, that'd be(e) fantastic.
There needs to be specific standards clarifying what the rule actually is.
Hard disagree. one of the most annoying things about some reddit moderation is that people would play the "hey technically there isnt a specific point by point rule for the thing so you cant ban me!" and reddit culture was such that the jackass could then start subreddit drama over the power hungry mod "that banned me from being a loud obnoxious jerk, but technically the rules specify loud jerk, but not loud AND obnoxious".
This isnt your living room and I think as long as the mods and admins have a good head on their shoulders they should allowed to have a set of rules along with discretion for when some users need a timeout.
Hard disagree. one of the most annoying things about some reddit moderation is that people would play the “hey technically there isnt a specific point by point rule for the thing so you cant ban me!” and reddit culture was such that the jackass could then start subreddit drama over the power hungry mod “that banned me from being a loud obnoxious jerk, but technically the rules specify loud jerk, but not loud AND obnoxious”.
yeah bluntly if you don't like this standard, don't post here. this is an inflexible part of how we want to do things here, and it's specifically because we're uninterested in this kind of rules lawyering. the whole point of the Fediverse is there are countless other instances and communities being spun up with clearly enumerated rules you can go be on if you disagree with us.
Yeah Reddit has far too many wannabe Harvey Specters who think 'anything that's not prohibited is permitted' is a challenge rather than a principle. I think how people react to this stance is quite telling sometimes, 'Moderator discretion' means 'moderators can keep your rule-breaking post up if it's a genuinely good contribution' as much as it means 'moderators can remove your posts and ban you arbitrarily'; it'd be a poor start coming to this place not to assume good faith in the moderators especially as most of us are here in response to bad faith on Reddit's part.
I want to provide a bit more of a nuanced answer here, because I suspect there are users for which a wee bit more clarity would be helpful. A quick google on hate speech reveals that the UN has a pretty simple page and info-graphic capturing what hate speech entails (in b4 lemmygrad calls me a UN shill). As alyaza mentioned, we're not interested in rules lawyering about this, if enough people are concerned about speech that's present, we encourage the entire community to step in - this means members can remind you keep it nice, moderators might, or admins. We aren't looking to ban people permanently over a single comment that isn't extremely obvious and explicit hate speech such as "we should kill all <insert slur>". But we also aren't tolerant to implicit hate speech, and we will step in if you make an argument such as "we should use phrenology".
As a general rule (again, not interested in rules lawyering here), if you are trying to advocate for a stance and members of the affected community are pushing back strongly against that stance, it's probably not something we're going to let you say around here because we are explicitly a safe space. Your stance on gender-affirming healthcare, for example, could make people who pursue this healthcare who exist in our space very upset and is something that you shouldn't be attempting to proselytize here. We're asking you to be considerate of the thoughts and feelings and well-being of our members. There's a lot of other reasons why you should probably change your stance on this, including that even if you disagree this group of individuals has an extremely high suicide rate and thus preventing access to medical care is indirectly arguing for violence, but that's outside the scope of this comment and not an educational burden I'm particularly interested in giving to a stranger on the internet who's asking me questions which raise an eyebrow. I'm trying to treat you with good faith, but even I have limits.
One final note, we are explicitly intolerant of intolerance. Thus if someone using hate speech enters in here, we are not moderating people being hateful in response. They brought that on themselves by being hateful.
I love this comment - it makes me feel really good about my decision to make Beehaw my homebase. Your stance is refreshing and thoughtful. Thank you!
I'm gathering there is some sketchyness about lemmy.ml, but I don't know what I'm talking about just yet. I hope not, because they have some of the larger communities, it seems. They have the only vegan one, I think.
Thanks for your response, it’s very helpful. If a user asking a very legitimate question in a civil and respectful manner is “eyebrow raising” and at the limit of your ability to act in good faith then this community is probably not for me.
Peace out! I probably won’t be missed anyway. I just wish there was a single community online that was non-partisan and open to real debate and discussion.
I don't think it's fair to characterize "eyebrow raising" or my detailed response in which I spent mental time and energy to educate you as malicious, but I wish you luck on your journey. Everyone deserves a space in the world and I hope you find yours.