FBXL Social

@doot I think its important to include the full context here... the wording is specifically:

> No "hate speech", speech that nefariously expresses a form of prejudice or threatens a people of a protected characteristic (such as age, disability, ethnicity, gender, pregnancy, religion, sex or sexuality - unpopular opinions
voiced respectfully is fine).

What is being said here is that no hate speech or attacks or anything of that sort are allowed against any of the protected and marginalized groups... **outside** of that if you have an opinion which is not an attack on one of these groups, but people just dont like it, then its fine.

Forcing people to only speak popular opinions and banning people for unpopular ones is highly problematic IMO. As long as you are respectful, and do not disenfranchize marcganialized groups I think not having fear of being banned just for being unpopular is a good thing.

I'd be happy to hear your opinions on why "you can only say popular things" would be a good thing?

@doot

We tried to address that in the wording, if you feel it isnt clear we are more than welcome to improved verbiage and would welcome you edit suggestions.

Posing anti-trans sentiment as β€œlegitimate concerns”, speaking in scientific lingo so as to seem you’re approaching it on the basis of fact rather than hatred.

Trans people are a protected group we explicitly list, what you describe would be β€œnefarious” as such this would be explicitly against the rules and not simply β€œunpopular”. This is why we say β€œnefarious” and not just hate speech by itself.

Similar anti-migrant sentiment can be posed as economic concern. The intent not to be to actually discuss them from what are posed as rational positions that put sentiment aside, but to spread hateful ideas under a veil of legitimacy

If they are hateful ideas then they cant be voiced rrespectfully IMO, this would violate the respectful clause as that simply is not respectful no matter how you word it. That said, again, if you have a better way to word this im all for it.

@doot This is true.. look bad actors can have an absolutely perfect ToS and still act like pieces of shit. The fact that they have some set ofrules they dont really technically follow is a shame, but we cant damn all usage of a phrase or language just because some bad actors used it and then violated it.

@doot Sorry if im being argumentative.. its not my intent.

@doot I agree, and am happy to do so... sadly im not sure what that wording would look like. I have tried a dozen iterations and people always complain.. and when i ask for a suggestionn I can never get one.

@freemo @doot I raised this on your discussion system, but as there's no answer there and your site has gone live despite the numerous outstanding and unanswered discussions on your organisation's Gitlab I'll repeat it here. Of all the things that are prohibited, why is hate speech in air quotes?

Your Code of Ethics prohibits four things: hate speech; Calls to violence; intentionally circumventing blocks; and harassmnent [sic]

Only one of these things has air quotes.

Please explain.

@jaz

I wasnt the one who wrote that, the air quotes were added later by an edit... I honestly cant imagine why it is in air quotes.. I will remove it now.

Sorry I didnt see your issue. The site is live, but the bylaws arent final. We first need to get instances and have a mechanism in place for voting, and only then can we finalize it from draft to published.

Anyway making that edit now.

@doot

@doot The story behind that is a bit ironic.. you see the reasopn you saw so many bad actors use it is because... well.. it was explicitly taken from QOTO and used as the default set of rules in certain fediverse software. So basically anyone who spins up a new instance has a version of our rules as the default... sadly this resulted in many bad actors using it.

@freemo @doot

(ref: https://gitlab.com/ufoi/constitution/-/issues/17#note_1195337741 )

Hate speech is never an opinion. There is no hate speech that can be considered an opinion. They are mutually exclusive terms.

Adding this qualifier infers that some hate speech at least to you and your federation can sometimes be considered an opinion, and - apparently - an acceptable one.

Respectful bigotry, if such a thing exists, is still bigotry.

@jaz

The air quotes int he proposal, constitution, and the website have all now been removed.

You misinterprited the intent, and if you have a better wording that prevents such miscommunication in the future I am welcome to hear it.

The point here is to say as long as you arent uttering hate speech or being nefarious to a protected group, then opinions which are not hateful or attacking but are just not popular are ok... how can we express that better?

@doot

@freemo @doot

>The site is live, but the bylaws arent final.

No corporation I have ever incorporated, no organisation I have ever founded, started with the notion that it needs more members before it can create its own bylaws.

I - for one - will wait until your bylaws are final before considering applying.

@jaz

Literally every country has.. corporations are not democratic enttities that are formed by the comming together of independent enttiities.

In fact it is quite common to FIRST gather the members of an organization that wish to form a union, and THEN decide as a group what bylaws should exist that satisfied everyone.

PErsonally I think this is the right move, i think it would be in bad taste for me to dictate the bylaws to everyone and then expect people to follow it. This is supposed to be a democracy, the bylaws are a starting point, enttities join to try to help us create a good set of bylaws, those instnaces can leave if things head in the wrong direction.. and hopefully we get a good result in the end.

You are welcome to wait if you wish bylaws to be dictated to you rather than being a part of their creation, no worries, we arent going anywhere.

@doot

@freemo @doot

>how can we

Remove the qualifying sentence.

Hate speech is hate speech. It cannot be qualified otherwise.

"any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor."

End. Of.

There is no need, ever, to add an exception.

@jaz

Thats fair.. iw as going to respond saying it is needed at least in a seperate section, but I agree with you, it isnt needed. Because if we say respectful opinions are allowed then that is forced upon all instance moderation, and frankly i think instances should have the flexibility to moderate locally.

Did you already create a MR for this? if not i can create one.. ill support it and I suspect the federation will approve your suggested wording.

@doot

@doot

Someone ( https://toot.wales/@jaz/109475181545787806 @jaz ) just suggested this language, I like it.. .what do you think.

"any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor."

@freemo @doot

but we cant damn all usage of a phrase or language just because some bad actors used it and then violated it

Sure we can. We do it all the time. We classify that language as slurs or dog whistles and let them be signifiers for shitty people to not allow into any space we care about. If, for example, someone in your network of enlightened instances speaks at length about how thirteen percent of the population is responsible for over half of all murders, would that be within your rules?

@freemo @doot

>In fact it is quite common to FIRST gather the members of an organization that wish to form a union, and THEN decide as a group what bylaws should exist that satisfied everyone.

I believed that was what was happening on your Gitlab.

Now that you are public, I have to assume this is either unwanted input or deemed not necessary for launch, either of which are anathema to my participation.

@jaz

Yes it is what is happening on the gitlab.. people who are interested in the project and feel they are likely to want to be members (or even just want to provide input) are there trying to improve the wording..

The site is live to ensure we can get more people interested and tentatively wanting to join so we can get more heads on the gitlab and improve it.

What i dont want is a msall isolated group of people to decide for everyone... we get everyone involved who likes the basic idea, then we work on refining it as a group, then int he end see whos left.

I dont get why this seems to upset you,.

@doot

@probgoblin

Oh yes it is done all the time, and I think it is monumentally destructive to the intended cause and to society.

I have a deaf friend, they use the OK symbol quite often, its a crucial part of their language. They were in a photo once making the signed and dogpiled for being a nazi, it was disgusting... one of the worst things to develop in recent society is people looking for "dogwhistles" and accusing good people using common phrases of being nazis or alt-right just because a small portion of society uses those phrases...

Just because we do it all the time doesnt mean it is justified.

@doot

@doot

Ok ill add the new wording.

@jaz

@freemo @doot
That does not answer the question posed to you.

@doot

But they arent keeping themselves safe.. they are putting themselves in danger by attacking 95% of people who use it who arent nazis, people who are likely allies or potential allies and at best protecting themselves from a few nazis, maybe.

There is more harm done to our community than good.

What people dont realize is this is exactly the game the Nazis are playing.. a small group of nazis intentionally pick phrases or gestures that are extremely common because they WANT to pit LGBTQA against eachother and destroy communities, thats why they pick common every day phrases to do it... the issue is the LBTQA is being manipulated and ultimately destroying their own community and ostrizising allies and looking like the bad guy exactly like the Nazis want.... .so I dont think its a good choice.

Dont get me wrong I understand its out of safety, and I sympathize and understand it... but its extremely self-damaging.

@probgoblin

@probgoblin

Sure ill answer… it depends on what was said and the great context.

Here is something that wouldnt be acceptably:

Thirteen percent of the population is responsible for over half of all murders. Threfore black people are criminals by nature

Here is something that would be acceptable:

Thirteen percent of the population is responsible for over half of all murders. Which suggests they are discriminated against and arrested dispreportionately.

The first one is against our rules since blacks are a protected group and would fall under β€œnefarious”… the second is ok because you are trying to address an injustice against such a group.

@doot

@doot

Perhaps, I do respect and appreciate any choice someone makes for themselves to be protected.

All I know is when allys are constantly being treated like nazis it cuases a lot of credibility to be lost. It may not be fair, but the point is it hurts the community and just serves to create animosity and hate for a community that doesnt deserve it...

Plus I dont think it creates the protection you seek... If a nazi is out to attack you they know full well what the dog whistles are and just wont use it. So its not an effective tactic IMO, but again its up to you to decide what works for you, not up to me.

@probgoblin

@doot @jaz

The new wording for the code of ethics as suggested is up.

See it in the bylaws: https://ufoi.gitlab.io/constitution/united_federation_of_instances_bylaws.pdf

In the proposal:
https://ufoi.gitlab.io/constitution/united_federation_of_instances_proposal.pdf

and on the website:
https://ufoi.org/docs/code-of-ethics/

This suggestion comes from jaz.

@freemo @doot @probgoblin

Good talk. No animosity. This is how people disagree without hatred or attacks. I'm a fan of all of you.

@freemo @doot
You do know that that second statement has been an argument for creating an ethnostate for the last century or so, right?

@probgoblin

Saying blacks are unfairly targeted and arrested is an argument for an ethnostate? How so?

@doot

@freemo @doot
Because, and this was Jefferson's argument for continuing slavery or forced repatriation, in the face of the injustice inflicted upon them reconciliation and integration may not be possible and it would be better for all parties to be separated.

Dressing up bigotry and oppression in ways that sound reasonable and polite and not "nefarious" is nothing new.

@probgoblin

Wait what.. jefferson used the argument that blacks are arrested unfairly due to racism as an argument to perpetuate slavery, and thus we shouldnt point out the fact that blacks are arrested dispreportionately due to racism?

huh....

@doot

@freemo @doot
Close. The argument was that the cultural animosity from the practice of slavery was both justified and insurmountable. Which is the 18th century version of your allowed statement that black people commit more murders because they are discriminated against (which, is incredibly dehumanizing even if we don't look at the historical versions of that argument).

Between this and your assertions that the LGBTQ is somehow destroying their own communities and credibility by not being tolerant enough, I'm tapping out. Nothing productive will come from further discussion between us.

@probgoblin

Close. The argument was that the cultural animosity from the practice of slavery was both justified and insurmountable. Which is the 18th century version of your allowed statement that black people commit more murders because they are discriminated against (which, is incredibly dehumanizing even if we don’t look at the historical versions of that argument).

I said nothing of the sort.

I never said they commit more murders. I said they are discriminated against and arrested unfairly… this suggests they did not commit the mureders but were only arrested on it due to discrimination.

If you think pointing out that cops arrest blacks without cause and accuse tthem of murders dispreportionatly is wrong to point out, then I dont want to be right.

Between this and your assertions that the LGBTQ is somehow destroying their own communities and credibility by not being tolerant enough, I’m tapping out. Nothing productive will come from further discussion between us.

You really went in looking for a fight arent you. What I said is that Nazis are manipulating the LGBTQ to force them into responding in a way that hurts their own community.. a bit of a difference there dont you think?

@doot

$0.02

imnsho, it's important to make a distinction between attacks against ideas, versus attacks against the people themselves.

all these negative -isms pretty much boil down to impugning a person based on biological characteristics over which they have no choice or ability to change (notwithstanding cosmetically). that's quite different from an idea, which a person can adopt or discard at whim.

a good example of this is religion. some people consider this a protected class, but I think that's gravely in err. it's just an idea, and often not a very good one. if challenging that idea causes people hurt feelings, tough luck. same with any other idea.

complexion, biological sex, natural sexual inclinations, on the other hand are not something a person can typically change (again, notwithstanding cosmetically), and so it's beyond the pale to denigrate someone on that basis.

there's no need to exhaustively list all the protected classes and marginalized whatever du jour. you just need to evaluate what is being said consistently and without fail on the basis of whether it attacks an idea, or a person.

@doot @freemo Looks like it didn't last. I just checked https://qoto.org/about/more#rules and the current rule says "hate-based racism, sexism, and other hateful speech [will get you banned] but generally unpopular opinions voiced respectfully will be fine".

I want to ask what "unpopular opinions" are important enough to warrant an explicit whitelisting here but also vile enough that someone might reasonably have assumed "no hate speech" bans them, but I already know the answer will be "tHe tRaNs dEbAtE"

@andrewt @doot @freemo The "Unpopular opinions are ok" bit was copied from qoto to UFoI (both started by the same person-Freemo) but was removed from the latter after instances started leaving the day or two old UFoI (it "launched" with 19 instances, it was 13 before they decided to hide the "members list"). Qoto still has it.

@rbairwell @doot @freemo Ah right. tbqh I have not been modelling qoto and ufoi as meaningfully separate entities, like i know there's a distinction there in theory but not one that i feel i need to care about as an outsider

@doot Is that fair? I have no way of knowing! But my experience is: almost certainly.

And if I were running a Mastodon instance, I probably would not read every post on qoto to find out, or engage in a "public, evidence-based due process" because honestly, who has that kind of time?

No, I'm going to assume it's a server full of YouTube Atheists debating whether or not my friends should have human rights and block the whole thing, and it's unreasonable for @freemo to expect anything else.

@andrewt

No we removed it sometime before any instances left.

Wrt qoto are yiu suggestion an instance must suspend anyone with an unpopular opinion? This seems like such a weird thing to get hung up on when we clearly and explicitly ban for derogatory towards marginalized people.

@rbairwell @doot

@andrewt

I have reworded our ToS maybe 30 times to keep appeasing objections like this and people just find new ways to twist it into something bad.. ill change it again I dont mind, but its getting absurd.. You ever think maybe you came in with a preconseption and went looking for something that would confirm it rather than the other way around?

Look what is meant is simple... derogatory speech isnt allowed, as long as its not derogatory speech then unpopular opinions are allowed. I will update QOTO so it copies the UFoI wording so there is no confusion, but we make this clear in several other places in our ToS..

As for the whole "what about this? discussion", Its an open-floor discussion, lots of people might have some bad ideas, thats why its a discussion.. but no exceptions have even been put up to vote, so lets try to worry about it if it happens...

I will make this clear, if hate speech or derogatory speech is allowed then QOTO would leave the UFoI. The irony, of course, is that leaving the UFoI would probably make people happy and they will just ignore the why and still call us nazis.

Still waiting for a single person to find even a single objectionable thing on the QOTO timeline, even remotely so.. but nah, that would just burst all the fun everyone is having calling people nazis I guess who are otherwise good people.

@doot

@andrewt

I realize I didnt fully answer your question in my last response...

So I assume by "the trans debate" you mean people debating if trans people are "valid"? So your suggesting that isnt derogatory speech but is a simple difference of opinion not falling under derogatory speech? I dunno, that is shocking, personally I think it is quite clear that would fall under the first clause as hate-speech/derogatory-speech... not that would not get an exception..

So what is not derogatory speech but is unpopular? How about debate over if QOTO is a good actor or not? The last week we got about I dunno 80 new users who were banned from their home instances simply for saying somerthing like "I dont see any prejudice coming from QOTO".. bam, their banned.. for... an... unpopular opinion.

Now i want to be clear there is a reason we have that clause in QOTO and not int he UFoI, theUFoI governs other instances. Therefore if some instance wants to make a rule making some sort of unpopular non-derogatory speech against the rules, they can. So that clause simply makes no sense... At qoto however as long as you are respectful, kind, and not derogatory towards marginalized people simply saying 'Windows phones are great" (an unpopular opinion) wont get you banned.

@doot

@freemo @doot ngl, that rule reads really sinister to me

Like, "no hate speech" is a great rule. And adding a definition of hate speech is a great idea.

But why add "unpopular opinions are OK"? No reasonable person would think "no hate speech" will censor your magnum opus thread about why Jar-Jar is Good Actually, so the only way that addition makes any sense is if "unpopular opinions" means "shall we just discuss if scientific racists might have a point tho, just to check they don't ofc".

@andrewt

This seems like a huge leap in reasoning... it is not an exceptional clause, it is a qualifying clause.. that is, a clause which **explains** a thing, rather than providing an **exception** to a thing. This clause **explains** that outside of derogatory speech unpopular opinions that are not derogatory wont get you in trouble. I do agree this clause shouldnt be neccesary but sadly a large portion of admins are fairly abusive with how they block and so, it is.

@doot

@goatsarah

Absolutely, I agree, it should not be your job to protect yourselves, it should be the job of those in the community to make the community a place that is moral and just.

No one is saying you cant disengage, or that you shouldnt have the right.. am also not saying that it is right that this action leads to more harm, it shouldnt... but the sad fact is, it does. When you accuse the good people risking everything of being Nazis and drive them off by shunning, you create a space where people dont try to make a safe space for you, its wrong, they should do it anyway, but they wont. Especially when the abuse (being called a nazi or treated like one) is coming from the people you try to help and when you do that and get hated by both sides now.

I can relate to my own expiernces, and please try to also consider where im coming from... I took a stance for 5 years now that as we can all see is a large component in having the community treat me exact the way we are discussing... Everyone ignores the fact that I did it because I saw a life, and LGBTQ life, saved by this choice.. I stuck with it when i saw a second life saved later. I am so passionate about my choice after seeing these lives saved that no matter how much the mob yells at me I wont back down.. because being unpopular to save LGBTQ lives is a good trade off for me.}

Here is the catch though, now I am the target of very similar abuse that the LGBTQ phase... all the legitimate nazis are out there attacking me and shunning me for daring to care about the LGBTQ community and stand up for them. At the same time the very LGBTQ community I have commit to help is imaging dog whistles that dont exist and lumping me in with the Nazis....

So consider the position I'm in.. I have a choice... I choose to be popular with the LGBTQ community at the cost of seeing the death of people I could have saved... I choose to be a nazi and wind up popular with that group.. or I choose the moral high ground and do what I know and have seen to be right but accept everyone on both sides hating me for imagined nonsense. Luckily I care about doing what is right, and I always will... A lesser person wouldnt, a lesser person would choose to let the LGBTQ community burn just so they could have a friend and not be under constant assault... Is their choice right? No... but it is the choice most people will make.

@doot @probgoblin

@freemo @doot This has multiple issues:

1) People conflate β€œrespectful” and β€œpolite”

And as a consequence:

2) Victims of persecution are goaded into justified anger by their persecutors, β€œrespectfully asking questions and expressing opinions”, and then banned for that anger.

I like the idea of a confederation of smaller instances as a small instance admin myself. I find the sales pitch for yours turns me right off though.

@goatsarah

Well the "sales pitch" is posted as a draft. Thats intentional, the point is so you and people like you can jump in and help reword it to get it to something you do like... So why not go in and make edits and suggestions to something you find more appealinng. I have no doubt it will go through.

@doot

@freemo @doot I’d love to, but I’m washing my hair.

@goatsarah

If you arent part of the solution then you are part of the problem...

@doot

@freemo @doot Help me understand here. Do you think a user would look at the rule β€œno hate speech” and assume that it meant they couldn’t say Windows Phones are good? If not, why would you say β€œno hate speech but unpopular opinions are ok” and not β€œno bots but black people are ok” or β€œno advertising but you are allowed to use punctuation”? Putting the two things in one sentence implies a connection and that's concerning.

@andrewt

Help me understand here. Do you think a user would look at the rule β€œno hate speech” and assume that it meant they couldn’t say Windows Phones are good?

Its a qualifying clause, not an exceptional clause.. so that question doesnt make sense unless it were an exceptional clause.

β€œno bots but black people are ok”

The difference is hate-speech is sometimes misused to include things that arent hate-speech.. othertimes its misused to not include things that are hate speech…. on the other side I have never seen the term β€œbot” being misused to include black people…

All that said clearly the clause is causing confusion and you are interpriting it in a way that it wasnt meant to be. It is my job to make it more clear then… I will reword it now and move that qualifying clause to its own line and therefore address your concern so it wont be mistaken as an exceptional clause.

@doot

@freemo @doot To me, it implies that you're saying "no hate speech, but don't worry, we have a really tight definition of hate speech so feel free to push the envelope", which yeah, feels worth defederating from. I can't think of another reasonable way to read that sentence and your insistence on treating the two halves of it as completely separate entities just makes you look extremely silly.

@andrewt

I've taken your concerns into consideration and changed our ToS to be more clear.. do you think this satisfies your concerns (see our ToS, its live)

Under what will get you banned:

No hate speech, We define hate speech as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a protected characteristic, in other words, based on their age, disability, ethnicity, gender, pregnancy, nationality, sex or sexuality.

Under What won't get you banned:

Unpopular opinions voiced respectfully will be fine, so long as it doesnt violate our other rules.

@doot

@freemo The head of BBC News last month told LGBT staff who complained about the department's transphobic output: "get used to hearing views you don’t like". https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fran-unsworth-tells-bbc-staff-get-used-to-hearing-views-you-dont-like-gz7f07cpk

Lsat year Sussex Uni cried "academic freedom" when students demanded they fire a transphobic professor.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/oct/07/university-defends-academic-freedoms-after-calls-to-sack-professor

What do you expect people to assume when they see an "academic freedom" instance that has an explicit rule that "unpopular opinions" are allowed and which openly federates with fascists?

@andrewt

Well lets look to QOTO's openly LGBTQ community and see what their opinion is then, they would be the one to ask no?

https://qoto.org/@LouisIngenthron/109480772494982459

@doot

@freemo I'm not trying to tell you what your own instance is like. You know better than me. I'm trying to explain to you how it *looks* to everyone else, and it feels like you just don't understand what I'm saying.

Which honestly, is a red flag. Like you could say "yes, I see that, but I think there's a place for less strictly moderated instances too and if that means some people defederate, so be it", but instead you started acting like Octodon will ban you for openly liking Windows Phone 7.

@andrewt

We have been federated with octodon for 5 years, over that time our policies have significantly increased in their explicit wording for protections of LGBTQ...

So what changed when octodon finally decided to defederate from us? Well.. Snow. A person who was openly a Nazi, an nazi who started their career on the fediverse on QOTO but quickly got banned.. he took on a vandetta openly to discredit us (see attached images)... He went around with a cohort of nazis as alts on various LGBTQ friendly instances and spread lies and misinformation about us... after 5 years of being recognized as a LGBTQ safe space he now has us viewed as Nazis, despite the fact that our policies have only improved.

So yea i have no doubt someone will and can **twist** what it looks like.. and even when i hear you, as I did, and change our ToS over and over and over again to appease every complaint it will **never** be enough. You and people who think like you will always find some reason to justify how it "looks" and not really care about what the reality is...

The disgusting fact is a knnown nazi publicly admited they were going to twist the LGBTQA community against itself out of spite, and all the people jumping on that band wagon are just proving that the Nazis are the ones running the show.... good luck with that.

@freemo Like, you must see how "the allegations against us are false AND ALSO when we say 'academic freedom' we don't mean bigotry in fancy words AND ALSO when we say 'hate speech is bad but unpopular opinions are ok' we don't mean 'you can advocate for genocide as long as you're kinda vague about it and don't use slurs' AND ALSO we only federate with fascists to keep an eye on them" is never going to be an easy sell, right? You're asking for a lot of benefit from much less doubt than you think.

@andrewt I do very much understand how that can be twisted against us despite 5 years of public record of looking out for, defending, and investing in the LGBTQ community. So do I see how it can be twisted to be unpopular... yes I do.... Can you see how I care more about saving LGBTQ lives than I do about being popular and expect that people who are truely good people should be able to see that if they take more than a cursory glance?

@andrewt I do want to say i am sorry ive interacted iwth you so defensively... I should not. I appreciate and respect your abiity to engage respectfully

@andrewt Consider this.. every example you just gave was the result of me knowingly making an unpopular decision because ot was pbjectively int he best interest of the safety of the LGBTQ on my server...

* The false alligations - > Largely a result of snow's hate/disinformation campaigh
* Academic Freedom -> It explicitly is stated it doesnt extend to derogetory, or hate speech, or bad-faith discussions about marginalized groups
* hate speech but not popular opinions -> Yea this makes sense since it can and was not clear, I have since fixed that per your suggestion. But keep in mind there was also a whole paragraph about this clarifying it in the ToS already
* federate with fascists -> This was a decision by about 1000 LGBTQ members who first created this instance, it was created originally to monitor bad actors as part of their safety network. We have taken several precautions though to mitigate this as well.

One day you wake up, finding yourself inside a purity spiral, wondering if it will ever end..
replies
0
announces
0
likes
2

@freemo I mean I can't *see* that but to be fair I haven't looked into it. Happy to take you at your word, I've no reason not to.

It's tough, though β€” like, I've been on here for five years and hadn't heard of Qoto until a few weeks ago, so I guess the public record is not as well known as we might like. A lot of decisions will end up being made kind of on vibes, and I'm not sure there's much we can practically do about it.

Where that leaves us with things like Snow, I have no idea.

@andrewt See this statement I agree with 1000%... where that leacves us with things like snow... is finding a solution.. that attempt at a solution is the UFoI... sadly snow has done his job so extremely well that even solutions to address Snow are seen as just more proof I'm a Nazi

@freemo

They gotta be smarter than the nazis. If they are not, how do you fix that?

@EubieDrew I am trying to do that with the ... problem is that Snow was so good at his job of trying to discredit us that even the attempt at the UFoI is seen as just further proof that I am the Nazi....

@freemo @andrewt I’ve 1/2 convicted myself these accounts are someone in India somewhere paid to troll.

@tsomof

Only reason i doubt that is their too stupid to be paid.. its clearly emotional if they are announcing they are doing it.

@andrewt

@freemo Yeah, I... I don't know if you can win this one. Ages ago I ended up on a Twitter blocklist somehow and I honestly don't know why. Maybe I did something to deserve it at some point, maybe not. But there's nothing to be done about it and honestly I worry that making noise will just mean people setting up new instances, blocklists, accounts, etc will remember it for longer.

@andrewt I usually find that given enough time the evidence eventually prevails... What will usually happen is a bunch of toxic people will rage hard against it, and then everyone in the fediverse knows about it... eventually the loud ones disapear and the silent majority prevails.

Consider this... the reddit post that started all this drama about the UFoI .. bvasically just a link to it, hit the record high upvotes of any post ever on the subreddit, bt a decent margin. It also had 87% upvotes. Despite this the comments were largely negative, but at the same time almost all negative comments had negative votes and the much smaller number of supportive comments all had positive votes.

This tells me that there is a huge silent majority... the people talking all universally hate it, but an overwhyelming majority overall actually like it.

Why you might ask? Because the ones attacking it are the most toxic people on the fedi mostly.. they will block and suspend you and get you on 33 block lists just for voicing support for the UFoI (one prominent LGBTQ member joined his server to the UFoI and immediately left and got on 33 block lists they wont lift). Soi people overwhelming support it, they are just scared to talk out, which is WHY they support it, they wish they had the ability to.

So whats that mean? IMO it means as long as we build up members without releasing the names until we reach criitical mass, then all gi kuve together, then it should be very popular as it will have enough momentum to feel more like a shield that a vulnerability.

@freemo @andrewt perhaps. I run across threads that will dog pile on me time to time seem very limited in thought & articulation. They get the spambot anyway.

@tsomof

Thats just cognitivie dissonance reefusing to accept that the world can be this shitty when it really is I think... but god I hope you are right.

@andrewt

@freemo @andrewt I’m not dismissing the nonsense. I just think something else is a foot to add to the frenzy

@tsomof

That would not surprise me.. its been shown to be the case with russia and likely other countries too. So yea there is an element of thatt, how much I cant say, maybe a lot.

@andrewt

@freemo


Prejudice is a preconceived (usually unfavourable) evaluation or classification of another person based on that person's perceived political affiliation, sex, gender, gender identity, beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race, ethnicity, language, nationality, culture, complexion, beauty, height, body weight, occupation, wealth, education, criminality, sport-team affiliation, music tastes or other personal characteristics (Wiki)

The point is, anyone can identify with many of these variables. All of the variables are amoral (neutral without any further personality context)

What is immoral is if a person has a grudge (a precondition bias) against a person or demographic of people, not because of their personality (their "goodness" or "badness"), but because of their ethnicity, body weight, sexuality, etc.

So, intellectually, we can define what prejudice is therefore what it's not.

The OP "raised eyebrows" about "unpopular opinions are fine". I interpreted the " unpopular opinions" within the context of what's consider an ethically academic context (civilised debate). That means not in the context of any institutions, academic or not, that explicitly express dubious prejudice ideologies.

@freemo is correct that the real fascists have a divide & conquer agenda. They do not value honesty & humility because they score low in those personality traits. https://hexaco.org/

So, on social media, there is a large variance of personality types. People that all have their own personal experiences, ideologies & hopefully, at least some empirical evidence so as to "ground" themselves.

In the context of a real "goodness" of character - if the average human (population statistics) has that quality, then joining forces is how we defeat the minority that don't. There is no such quality has perfection, however, maybe the United Federation of (aiming to be civilised) Instances (UFoI) can be a step in the right direction. If so, the wrong agents will spread disinformation (lies, deception, etc) to try & break up the UFoI. For example, spreading disinformation on this thread.

Anyone can tap or write "l heard X allows prejudice, therefore don't trust X".

Without a method to collect evidence (facts), it's all just social gossip (hearsay). It's the weight of the evidence that counts. If an instance evidently blocks hate speech, then it's actions speak for itself.

But, how can that evidence be quantified? considering the bad agents will be spreading false accusations against people & instances.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

@tsomof @andrewt

@freemo


Prejudice is a preconceived (usually unfavourable) evaluation or classification of another person based on that person's perceived political affiliation, sex, gender, gender identity, beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race, ethnicity, language, nationality, culture, complexion, beauty, height, body weight, occupation, wealth, education, criminality, sport-team affiliation, music tastes or other personal characteristics (Wiki)

The point is, anyone can identify with many of these variables. All of the variables are amoral (neutral without any further personality context)

What is immoral is if a person has a grudge (a precondition bias) against a person or demographic of people, not because of their personality (their "goodness" or "badness"), but because of their ethnicity, body weight, sexuality, etc.

So, intellectually, we can define what prejudice is therefore what it's not.

The OP "raised eyebrows" about "unpopular opinions are fine". I interpreted the " unpopular opinions" within the context of what's consider an ethically academic context (civilised debate). That means not in the context of any institutions, academic or not, that explicitly express dubious prejudice ideologies.

@freemo is correct that the real fascists have a divide & conquer agenda. They do not value honesty & humility because they score low in those personality traits. https://hexaco.org/

So, on social media, there is a large variance of personality types. People that all have their own personal experiences, ideologies & hopefully, at least some empirical evidence so as to "ground" themselves.

In the context of a real "goodness" of character - if the average human (population statistics) has that quality, then joining forces is how we defeat the minority that don't. There is no such quality has perfection, however, maybe the United Federation of (aiming to be civilised) Instances (UFoI) can be a step in the right direction. If so, the wrong agents will spread disinformation (lies, deception, etc) to try & break up the UFoI. For example, spreading disinformation on this thread.

Anyone can tap or write "l heard X allows predujice, therefore don't trust X".

Without a method to collect evidence (facts), it's all just social gossip (hearsay). It's the weight of the evidence that counts. If an instance evidently blocks hate speech, then it's actions speak for itself.

But, how can that evidence be quantified? considering the bad agents will be spreading false accusations against people & instances.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

@tsomof @andrewt

@freemo


Prejudice is a preconceived (usually unfavourable) evaluation or classification of another person based on that person's perceived political affiliation, sex, gender, gender identity, beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race, ethnicity, language, nationality, culture, complexion, beauty, height, body weight, occupation, wealth, education, criminality, sport-team affiliation, music tastes or other personal characteristics (Wiki)

The point is, anyone can identify with many of these variables. All of the variables are amoral (neutral without any further personality context)

What is immoral is if a person has a grudge (a precondition bias) against a person or demographic of people, not because of their personality (their "goodness" or "badness"), but because of their ethnicity, body weight, sexuality, etc.

So, intellectually, we can define what prejudice is therefore what it's not.

The OP "raised eyebrows" about "unpopular opinions are fine". I interpreted the " unpopular opinions" within the context of what's consider an ethically academic context (civilised debate). That means not in the context of any institutions, academic or not, that explicitly express dubious prejudice ideologies.

@freemo is correct that the real fascists have a divide & conquer agenda. They do not value honesty & humility because they score low in those personality traits. https://hexaco.org/

So, on social media, there is a large variance of personality types. People that all have their own personal experiences, ideologies & hopefully, at least some empirical evidence so as to "ground" themselves.

In the context of a real "goodness" of character - if the average human (population statistics) has that quality, then joining forces is how we defeat the minority that don't. There is no such quality has perfection, however, maybe the United Federation of (aiming to be civilised) Instances (UFoI) can be a step in the right direction. If so, the wrong agents will spread disinformation (lies, deception, etc) to try & break up the UFoI. For example, spreading disinformation on this tread.

Anyone can tap or write "l heard X allows predujice, therefore don't trust X".

Without a way to collect evidence, it's all just social gossip (hearsay). It's the weight if evidence that counts. If an instance evidently blocks hate speech, then it's actions for themselves.

But, how can that evidence be quantified? considering the bad agents will be spreading false accusations against people & instances.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

@tsomof @andrewt

@freemo


Prejudice is a preconceived (usually unfavourable) evaluation or classification of another person based on that person's perceived political affiliation, sex, gender, gender identity, beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race, ethnicity, language, nationality, culture, complexion, beauty, height, body weight, occupation, wealth, education, criminality, sport-team affiliation, music tastes or other personal characteristics (Wiki)

The point is, anyone can identify with many of these variables. All of the variables are amoral (neutral without any further personality context)

What is immoral is if a person has a grudge (a precondition bias) against a person or demographic of people, not because of their personality (their "goodness" or "badness"), but because of their ethnicity, body weight, sexuality, etc.

So, intellectually, we can define what prejudice is therefore what it's not.

The OP "raised eyebrows" about "unpopular opinions are fine". I interpreted the " unpopular opinions" within the context of what's consider an ethically academic context (civilised debate). That means not in the context of any institutions, academic or not, that explicitly express dubious prejudice ideologies.

@freemo is correct that the real fascists have a divide & conquer agenda. They do not value honesty & humility because they score low in those personality traits. https://hexaco.org/

So, on social media, there is a large variance of personality types. People that all have their own personal experiences, ideologies & hopefully, at least some empirical evidence so as to "ground" themselves.

In the context of a real "goodness" of character - if the average human (population statistics) has that quality, then joining forces is how we defeat the minority that don't. There is no such quality has perfection, however, maybe the United Federation of (aiming to be civilised) Instances (UFoI) can be a step in the right direction. If so, the wrong agents will spread disinformation (lies, deception, etc) to try & break up the UFoI. For example, spreading disinformation on this thread.

Anyone can tap or write "l heard X allows predujice, therefore don't trust X".

Without a way to collect evidence, it's all just social gossip (hearsay). It's the weight if evidence that counts. If an instance evidently blocks hate speech, then it's actions for themselves.

But, how can that evidence be quantified? considering the bad agents will be spreading false accusations against people & instances.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

@tsomof @andrewt

@andrewt
Your arrogant claim that *your* highly idiosyncratic personal view of
@freemo
is what he looks like to *everyone else* is Hate Speech of the worst, namely passive-aggressive, kind.

How *DARE* you imposing your own prejudices on everyone else?!?

@tatzelbrumm

I would like to hope they meant "to some people" and not "to everyone else"... I like to give people the benefit of thte doubt. Though you are right that was horrible wording on their part.

I doubt they realize that while I have a lot of people who support me, the type of people I attract are also the non-confrontational types, so they arent the ones you see yelling in a crowd. My "tribe" are quiet people who like to avoid the drama... which ironically people like that are often theones that piss peoplke off the most.

@andrewt

@freemo
Looks like @andrewt
is modeling the passive-aggressive hate speech pattern perfectly:
declare YOUR OWN idio[syncra]cy as "how everybody sees it" and declare any deviating standpoint unacceptable free speech.

We can't afford NOT confronting this deliberate kind of reality distortion.

@tatzelbrumm

Thge conversation ended on a positive note.. ill give them a pass for any rough passive aggressive beginings... In their defense I was being pretty defensive too.

@andrewt

@tatzelbrumm @freemo ok well I'll admit that was badly phrased but when I wake up to a bunch of uncharitable replies from strangers accusing me of "idiocy" and "deliberate distortion of reality" it does not make me *less* sympathetic to instance admins who decide to just block your whole server and not have to think about it any more. I thought yours was supposed to be an instance where conflicting ideas are discussed rationally rather than simply assumed to be bad faith?

@andrewt

It usually is.. people are touchy considering the constant barrage of attacks that sounded a lot like what you were expressing.. given the situation people are noticably snippy.

@tatzelbrumm