BigBlackCockroach @ BigBlackCockroach @lemmy.world

Posts

81

Comments

383

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

How would you implement blocking at the invidual level, i take it you mean it to be content category based?

Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from consequences for your speech.

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.

What i mean like the jury system were 12 random users for example might be picked and then they get to vote on a case.

I think something were there was a jury system, part of your social media experience would be to sit jury for a queue of cases. and you just vote by button press along with 12 others to decide on bans and the like.

I think I found this out a bit late. I was looking for something that allows for free speech while preventing anti-social content/behaviour.

The line should strictly be drawn at anti-social behaviour like the examples you gave but free speech that is within the limits of what is reasonable should not be stifled.

prevent the gore pictures but dont band somebody posting their christian rock band or their satanist book club

There’s ways to “not follow the hive mind”

that depends on the community r/conservative gets you banned for even slight deviation from allowed opinions.

I would also be fine if insults, hate speech, lies, predejcue, riling up and hate and spam and off topic are prevented but legitimate speech remains uncensored.

basically all speech that doesnt break the rules.

No not at all there are limits to free speech for example screeming fire in a packed theatre.

I don't think it should be in the hands of individuals but it should probably be community based idk, maybe through voting or some better system. like a sort of distributed moderation instead of centralized.

I’m saying that the opinions that people piled onto were generally worth piling onto.

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.

So you are saying reddit isn't plagued by behaviour where people basically pile onto diverging (albeit legitimate) opinions?

That is also, essentially, not moderated?

Of course i do NOT want to see any pedos or other awful content. I was talking about content that follows the rules but is censored despite that.

Guess we’ll see.

I guess so

Assuming you argue in good faith:

If switching lands you in the exact same predicament then switching is no solution. the reason why i brought up feddex and ups is because none of the problems you face at feddex will be resolved by switiching to ups. just as switching from working at burger king to working at mcdonalds wont change your position.

I just don't think the choice between either censorship or isolation is a good one.

Freedom of speech should also extend to social media. Of course that does not include pedos or people screaming fire in a theatre or inciting genocide.

I get the feeling that you are not taking me seriously or that you might even be mocking or worse ridiculing me /s

I myself have not made a single report.

I consider the job of mods to prevent another 4chan. Without moderation pedo content and other awful content will flood the site. I do not bother mods because of name-calling. Sticks and stones may break your bones but words can never hurt me.

If you got banned a lot of Reddit, the problem might be you.

Or the problem might be reddit i.e. a problem reddit has with free speech:

• reddit is like many other social media subject to campaigns of propaganda by companies, groups, state-actors.
• bots are common place and are influencing discourse

Social effects like mob mentality take place, so if you are an individualist and say it how it is you are going to be surpressed just for voicing a legitimate opinion.

You clearly cannot question the prevalence of bots and large scale manipulation by bad faith actors (say for example a company that systematically downvotes or through their mods bans all unfavorable comments about flaws in their new product).

Somehow I can't reply to the other reply so i do it here:

No i do not have one of those trouble-maker post histories. Most of the time the people who get banned are the ones who don't follow the hive-mind.