SaidIt Survey: Ban /u/socks and /u/ActuallyNot or keep them around?

submitted by JasonCarswell from self.AskSaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]astronautrob 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

Are you really going to say that if someone breaks a rule then banning them from a platform, or anything at all, is not the same as censorship? So if you break rules on YouTube or Reddit or any other platform and they ban you, do you not consider that censorship? I really would like to know where you stand on this. If it is a yes and you do think platforms should have the ability to censor people if they break a rule does the same apply for everyday life in your belief? People who break societal rules, should they be banned from society (so to speak)? I'm not trying to troll here I would like to know your belief on this. This is what is happening in our society today, people wanting other people "banned" from society for not following the rules, a.k.a not getting the shot, not wearing a mask, etc. These are rules that are set or being set, should it be ok for people to be ostracized or banned from society because they didn't follow those rules? I'm in no way saying it's left or right, when I say the other side I'm not speaking in political terms I'm speaking strictly in a one side versus the other side no matter the context. What you do to the one side can be done to both, that's all I'm saying. So if we start banning people because they are "breaking the rules", instead of taking another avenue, then what happens when someone takes over saidit and makes new rules? The precedent is already set that we ban people who don't follow the rules. That precedent will stay even if the rules change. You see what I'm saying? Censorship is never the answer no matter the reasoning.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

FOTPACH : fair, open, transparent, peaceful, accountable, consistent, honest.

That legitimizes leaders and is what I want in all positions of authority, from government to social media management to whatever.

SaidIt has pretty clear policies and at least d3rr will explain (M7 wouldn't) his discipline = FOTPACH.

YouTube and Reddit do not only have ambiguous rules, they are not consistent, accountable, nor honest, much less the rest of it, and don't explain anything = censorship.

People who break societal rules, should they be banned from society (so to speak)?

This is exceptionally complicated and moot. Who writes the rules? Do these people actually represent the people? All elections are rigged in close to 50 ways. Are there flexible accommodations for minority viewpoints? Etc etc etc.

When the government wants to jab you with their mandatory experimental injection because of the rules, what will you say? When they let off a serial killer on a technicality because of the rules, what will you say?

Rules are only as good as those who write them, follow them, maintain them, and the logic, motives, and efficacy within them.

Moot.

So if we start banning people because they are "breaking the rules", instead of taking another avenue, then what happens when someone takes over saidit and makes new rules?

Why do you want to be so flexible for proven liars and shills who are always dragging down discussions and name-calling?

Who's going to take over SaidIt? Who's going to make new rules? You're not making sense and putting up strawmen.

You see what I'm saying? Censorship is never the answer no matter the reasoning.

No, I don't. You're confusing forum hygiene by clearing out the trash with censorship.

How do you propose we save SaidIt when A.I. can emulate STABs and/or CIA/Mossad hires dozens, hundreds, or thousands of cheap stupid STABs to overwhelm the authentic voices here simply truth-seeking and free-thinking?

[–]astronautrob 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

The idea that Saidit needs to be "saved" is not something I subscribe to so I can't answer that question. Saidit seems fine to me. The front page is relatively clean, diverse sub-saidits represented, not a lot of stuff I'd consider straight up spam, w.e, etc. It's certainly a lot better than it was a couple months ago when it seemed like other people where in charge (Ironleft gang or w.e). I mean weren't they trying to ban you or someone else for the same things? Granted they maybe didn't change the rules (Idk I didn't pay that much attention) but they seemed to reinterpret the rules so they could ban people because they were "breaking the rules". So it's funny that you try to discredit the idea of someone taking over saidit, because that's pretty much exactly what happened in that situation. Maybe it wasn't that overt but one group did get a lot of sway here on saidit, isn't that right? I mean come on that happened don't try and act like it's crazy to suggest it happening again and even on a bigger scale. It's not about being flexible for anyone, it's about enforcing censorship for any reason at all. I don't support censorship, or rules that try and enforce censorship, w.e you want to say. You can say I'm confusing censorship with any Orwellian term you like, but again that's just semantics. Banning = censorship, period.

You think socks is A.I.? Or some paid shill from some three letter company? Maybe, but it also might be that it's a person who leads a sad and boring life while getting dopamine hits from arguing with people on a semi (maybe?) popular website and if y'all didn't engage him/her, they would have nothing to do. The fact that you don't have the self control to just not engage with an individual is childish. Trying to use an excuse like the block feature doesn't work, or is "incomplete", is silly. You have the ability to ignore someone if you want, it just takes a little self control.