you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Re-read #6 and read my response to d3rr in this thread.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Dude. Are you pushing the censorship agenda?

Bad form... :-/

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Read the conversations.

d3rr proposed to clarify saidit policy with: "racial/ethic stereotyping or generalizations is low pyramid and forbidden"

I said it's not on target, "I'm only concerned about the future of SaidIt, and taking precautions now about things that may haunt us."

Maybe there's nothing to be done but be aware and be vigilant and ready should we actually need change.

Don't push your "agendas" and "forms" on me.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Don't push your "agendas" and "forms" on me.

This is a hypocritical joke of a statement. This entire sub is your agenda, on the form that you painstakingly designed.

You are proposing censorship and that's a one way slippery slope. This is a plan to fail.

What are the specific actions that can be imposed by some outside agency? How have others been censored? Does that risk exist here?
Identify the risks and fix those vulnerabilities.

Free speech is a strength. Unless it is manipulated into a weakness.

I recognize that you are trying to help. However, I think that you are making the mistake by convoluding tactics and principles.

Tactic are actions to promote an outcome: Silencing voices (tactic) that are risky may increase the relative safety of this site (desired outcome but not guaranteed).

Supporting free speech is a principle. Any actions or tactics that sacrifice principled values are inherently contradictory, and should be avoided at all costs.

You may want to re-examine the proposed tactics.
Are you bolstering free speech, or are you undermining it? Are you proposing sacrificing free speech, because some agency is ambiguously threatening it's existence.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

:-/

I'm not proposing any worse censorship than is already here. If you buy/sell weapons or drugs on SaidIt you will be censored. If you debase the discussion with name calling you will be censored.

I don't care about the bad words and have no intention of censoring them. I care about the future of free speech platforms, and in particular, I care about the elevated discourse on SaidIt. If there is a threat to the future of free speech platforms then I am concerned. Maybe this can simply be resolved in part by using more accurate descriptions about "The Jews", the most powerful and threatening collective on the planet. That's why I brought it up.

I'm not suggesting anyone stop talking about that collective, on political, religious, financial, media or whatever grounds. Just use better words with accuracy, without room for confusion, misinterpretation, or potential for censorship from outside forces. NOT silence.

I've asked if I'm overreacting. d3rr said not. Is d3rr not pushing censorship in bad form too?

I'm just discussing free speech and it's defensive strategies. And maybe folks can just say "the Zionists" instead of "the Jews". If they don't know the difference then they should learn because they know enough to be dangerous but not enough to be smart.

What tactics do you propose to resolve this dilemma, if it even is a dilemma worth worrying about? Maybe all we can do is brace and be vigilant and be prepared to act when acting is actually necessary.