I would argue that an instance is like a governing body for many communities, and defederation is censoring people of other nations.
“If you don’t like it, you can leave” is not as simple anymore because you cannot just migrate to a different instance (at least not fully)
Guns at Walmart is different, because you can’t just block a gun on a personal level, but on Lemmy you can block communities on a user level. (Blocking entire instances on a user level would be even better ). And guns pose a physical threat, while radical instances are more or less opinions people don’t agree with.
If a teacher has radical ideas, as long as he has overwhelming evidence, he should be allowed in my opinion. " Black people are out to get you" is very hard to agree with, but “gays shouldn’t be hanged” in a country like Iran isn’t.
Admins of course have a right to do whatever they want with their instance, and I’m not saying it shouldn’t be allowed, but I personally don’t agree with it and I’m voicing my opinion against it.
I have some instances in the fediverse that come to mind that I personally wouldn’t want to be defederated from but know that many others do. For example the mastodon instance pawoo where my favorite artists reside.
I strongly disagree with you and think you’re wrong. Especially that you would allow teachers to teach children that black people are out to get you, all to protect some made up ideal that was never intended when the first amendment was added.
If we didn’t allow for radical ideas to be discussed, we would still be in the dark ages, and criticizing the existence of God would be punishable by death.
I’m not American and the intention of the amendment doesn’t matter. Free Speech is a human right no matter what country or what definition they have. My definition is that it is absolute. Free speech is especially important when dealing with radical ideas. Free speech as long as it is moderate is nothing but a façade, propaganda to keep the population under control.
Let’s make up a scenario where it turns out there are vampires among us, and they’re all the same minority. Let’s say I have extensive research with DNA proof that any descendant from minority X is a vampire, and I’m trying to publish my research, but no publisher is willing to take me seriously. I try to speak in front of people, but I’m labeled a racist, and I’m banned from making public speeches or enter any university. I have the evidence, but cannot show it because people are so sure that it is absolutely impossible that there are vampires among us. In this scenario, I am a radical extremist, and by your argument, it is right for me to not have a voice.
Free speech is not what you think it is. In your scenereo you have the right to try to say what you’re trying to say. Just because your opinion is unpopular and people are unwilling to publish (freedom of speech and the press goes both ways, you can’t force someone to say something either) does not mean your rights are being infringed. This is universal and not just the US. There are no countries I’m aware of that say “all publishers must publish anything anyone says regardless of their credibility”. It would be ludicrous.
And if we go back to my example, that person who believes that they’re teaching children something true can go through the proper channels of society to change the curriculum. I’m also unsure if you’re actually giving the idea of “black people are out to get you” space or just hypothetically, I chose it as an example that’s obviously not true. Replace it with teaching them that strange white vans have candy in them and it’s okay to eat it. Or replace it with them explaining to the children sexual actions they desire in great detail. Your absolutism says they should be allowed by the school to do this, and if that doesn’t change your mind, I’ve made my case, you disgust me, and I choose not to engage further.
I’m not saying force people to listen. I’m just discouraging censoring them. And it doesn’t matter what examples you use. There could come out a study tomorrow saying talking to children about sexual desires in detail reduces sexual shame and clinical depression, and your example would fall flat. Should schools be forced to teach something like that? No. Should they be encouraged to? If it is evidently true, absolutely. Free Speech Absolutism is about allowing all free speech, and encouraging, not forcing, all to listen.
My point is, don’t just defederate without giving it a lot of thought, listen to opinions, and careful analysis. For all we know, that propaganda on that instance could turn out to be true and we were the ones who were wrong. Or maybe only one or two actors are bad, and the rest just like dark humor. Defederating means every single post on every single community on that instance goes, and I personally don’t think some propaganda or hate speech is enough to defederate. I think defederation should be for preventing spam bots, targeted harassment and distribution of illegal content, not to protect users from insensitive jokes or misinformation. That should be up to the individual users.
Take OP for an example. Without any real evidence op claims that the instance is full of baseless propaganda, but fails to give a single example. As someone who has never even heard of the instance before, for all I know, op could just as well be biased and just wants all conservative instances blocked. I did see the trans joke post on their page, and while I agree it is insensitive, is it “let’s have nothing to do with any user on that instance” insensitive?
Honestly, yeah I think it would be in my opinion.
I would argue that an instance is like a governing body for many communities, and defederation is censoring people of other nations. “If you don’t like it, you can leave” is not as simple anymore because you cannot just migrate to a different instance (at least not fully)
Guns at Walmart is different, because you can’t just block a gun on a personal level, but on Lemmy you can block communities on a user level. (Blocking entire instances on a user level would be even better ). And guns pose a physical threat, while radical instances are more or less opinions people don’t agree with.
If a teacher has radical ideas, as long as he has overwhelming evidence, he should be allowed in my opinion. " Black people are out to get you" is very hard to agree with, but “gays shouldn’t be hanged” in a country like Iran isn’t.
Admins of course have a right to do whatever they want with their instance, and I’m not saying it shouldn’t be allowed, but I personally don’t agree with it and I’m voicing my opinion against it.
I have some instances in the fediverse that come to mind that I personally wouldn’t want to be defederated from but know that many others do. For example the mastodon instance pawoo where my favorite artists reside.
I strongly disagree with you and think you’re wrong. Especially that you would allow teachers to teach children that black people are out to get you, all to protect some made up ideal that was never intended when the first amendment was added.
If we didn’t allow for radical ideas to be discussed, we would still be in the dark ages, and criticizing the existence of God would be punishable by death.
I’m not American and the intention of the amendment doesn’t matter. Free Speech is a human right no matter what country or what definition they have. My definition is that it is absolute. Free speech is especially important when dealing with radical ideas. Free speech as long as it is moderate is nothing but a façade, propaganda to keep the population under control.
Let’s make up a scenario where it turns out there are vampires among us, and they’re all the same minority. Let’s say I have extensive research with DNA proof that any descendant from minority X is a vampire, and I’m trying to publish my research, but no publisher is willing to take me seriously. I try to speak in front of people, but I’m labeled a racist, and I’m banned from making public speeches or enter any university. I have the evidence, but cannot show it because people are so sure that it is absolutely impossible that there are vampires among us. In this scenario, I am a radical extremist, and by your argument, it is right for me to not have a voice.
Free speech is not what you think it is. In your scenereo you have the right to try to say what you’re trying to say. Just because your opinion is unpopular and people are unwilling to publish (freedom of speech and the press goes both ways, you can’t force someone to say something either) does not mean your rights are being infringed. This is universal and not just the US. There are no countries I’m aware of that say “all publishers must publish anything anyone says regardless of their credibility”. It would be ludicrous.
And if we go back to my example, that person who believes that they’re teaching children something true can go through the proper channels of society to change the curriculum. I’m also unsure if you’re actually giving the idea of “black people are out to get you” space or just hypothetically, I chose it as an example that’s obviously not true. Replace it with teaching them that strange white vans have candy in them and it’s okay to eat it. Or replace it with them explaining to the children sexual actions they desire in great detail. Your absolutism says they should be allowed by the school to do this, and if that doesn’t change your mind, I’ve made my case, you disgust me, and I choose not to engage further.
I’m not saying force people to listen. I’m just discouraging censoring them. And it doesn’t matter what examples you use. There could come out a study tomorrow saying talking to children about sexual desires in detail reduces sexual shame and clinical depression, and your example would fall flat. Should schools be forced to teach something like that? No. Should they be encouraged to? If it is evidently true, absolutely. Free Speech Absolutism is about allowing all free speech, and encouraging, not forcing, all to listen.
My point is, don’t just defederate without giving it a lot of thought, listen to opinions, and careful analysis. For all we know, that propaganda on that instance could turn out to be true and we were the ones who were wrong. Or maybe only one or two actors are bad, and the rest just like dark humor. Defederating means every single post on every single community on that instance goes, and I personally don’t think some propaganda or hate speech is enough to defederate. I think defederation should be for preventing spam bots, targeted harassment and distribution of illegal content, not to protect users from insensitive jokes or misinformation. That should be up to the individual users.
Take OP for an example. Without any real evidence op claims that the instance is full of baseless propaganda, but fails to give a single example. As someone who has never even heard of the instance before, for all I know, op could just as well be biased and just wants all conservative instances blocked. I did see the trans joke post on their page, and while I agree it is insensitive, is it “let’s have nothing to do with any user on that instance” insensitive?