What irks me the most is the spinelessness of a lot of mods. Shadow banning and banning without an explanation just striffling free speech without acountability. Freedom of expression should not be subject to the whims of individuals!
If this gets me banned than you are worse than spez
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
So you are saying reddit isn't plagued by behaviour where people basically pile onto diverging (albeit legitimate) opinions?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 good way to engage with ideas different than the "mainstream"?
Is this the first time the "mainstram" is right?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://xkcd.com/1357/
Exactly this. Saved me the trouble. Thank you!
Are you in favor of firing teachers who day things that go against common popular teachings in an area?
Your mocking of this situation makes me feel you'd be in favor of laws that fire teachers for teaching evolution for example.
No? Evolution is a fact. Would I want teachers fired for saying things that are objectively not true? Or teaching opinions as facts? Yeah. More red flags in “go against common teachings,” here.
You need free speech to ensure teachers don't get fired for teaching science. I'd be care about removing that ability from other roles and people just because you disagree with the premise.
Are you complaining about Lemmy or Reddit?