They are still trying to delete/silence us, right here on Saidit.

submitted by Lilith_Fair from self.GenderCritical

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]motionlessoracle 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There's a tendency on the left (and perhaps in other groups, but I'm a member of the left so I see it more clearly) to say: this is a problem, I've thought of one solution, therefore it is the solution. Inevitably, the solution is the most obvious, which tells you something about the group proposing it. To the left, censoring speech is the first tool they grab. It's a clumsy tool, with splinters in the handle and a distressing tendency to injure both the user and innocent bystanders, but it vaguely gets the job done in the same way that a wrench can be used as a hammer.

There are alternative solutions that are far less chilling. For instance, permitting users to block other users so they never see their content puts control in the hands of individual users. The objectionable speech remains, but only for those who wish to see it, thus this option imposes no worldview on anyone. Everyone is free to cultivate their own bubble. Nobody has control over anyone else's bubble.

u/magnora7 indicated that this feature is desired and anyone who wants to take a crack at it can check out the github repository: https://github.com/libertysoft3/saidit

Another option would be to display subs and comments in a filtered way, by automatically collapsing those from users with low karma/recent account creation and hiding their posts from the /s/all feed. The comments/posts would still be visible to those who chose to look at them, but the default level of engagement with them would be low.

When trying to increase the signal to noise ratio, you can boost the signal or reduce the noise. Both approaches have limitations. Anyone who has spent time processing signals/data can tell you that removing noise (rather than preventing it from occurring) inevitably changes the signal as well. It distorts it.

[–]endthewoo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm having this convo in two sub-threads here so excuse the cut and paste:

You can't have free speech without space for everyone to speak. And to create space for everyone to speak you need rules and boundaries otherwise biggest-bully-troll wins and almost everyone else is denied their speech. All the evidence - seeing how things play out in practice every single time - tells us that.

Fully open debate is a fantasy, won't ever work. Even pple who claim to be for total free speech recognise that implicitly even though they pretend otherwise (for whatever reason).

Example: you set up a sub to discuss woodworking, or organise a talk on "new woodworking techniques". By its very nature that's already constrained and boundaried, and you (or FS absolutists) probably wouldn't advocate for others to go into that space en-masse and start screaming about some entirely different topic, or posting death threats, or libel or conspiracies. You'd say let everyone who is interested in woodworking come and share their ideas, some might be good ideas, some might not - have a discussion, counter points - but you'd recognise that if a screaming mob comes in to smash the place up then saying you can't evict them bcs "censorship" makes a nonsense of how discussion, learning, and testing of ideas functions.

So, why is it that for some spaces, some topics, those boundaries are reframed as "censorship" ? Terms of debate is a thing, as is freedom of assembly, and again, it's interesting who is and isn't allowed to assemble and set their own boundaries and terms.

[–]motionlessoracle 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm having this convo in two sub-threads here so excuse the cut and paste

That's fine, I appreciate the conversation.

So, why is it that for some spaces, some topics, those boundaries are reframed as "censorship" ? Terms of debate is a thing, as is freedom of assembly, and again, it's interesting who is and isn't allowed to assemble and set their own boundaries and terms.

Now that I see more of what you're trying to say, I think I agree with you.

I think of Saidit as an analogue of the US government. The government in the USA cannot silence your speech, except in a few fringe cases. That is absolute freedom of speech. The US government protects your right to say what you want to say and associate with whoever you wish. Its role is protective, only. Otherwise, it leaves you alone.

I think of the subs as like states or companies. The states in the US can absolutely create more legislation, as can the counties and cities. Companies can hire or fire you for almost any reason or no reason. Companies can create codes of conduct for employees. A sub, to me, is a voluntary association. Since anyone can make a sub, having a sub that restricts speech to a certain topic or tone is not necessarily damaging. Those who disagree can easily make their own sub and discuss there. I'm on the more liberal side of politics, so I think that speech should be tolerated to the maximum degree possible, but I agree that people talking about automotive repair on a woodworking sub should be directly encouraged to move the conversation elsewhere.

Within the context of the US federal government, which extends to everything the federal government supports (like public universities), certain boundaries infringe on free speech rights and are censorship. Within the context of private property, like a corporation, more boundaries are permitted. If people on saidit want to create black people only subs, or white people only subs, I think those should be permitted. If the sub moderators want to ban everyone who isn't black (or white), I also think that should be permitted.