social.sokoll.com

Bild/Foto
A reminder after the events in New Zealand:

#Pluspora does not tolerate hate speech.

this is kinda funny as such accounts haven't been deleted from pluspora :)
We have a reporting process that all the mods agreed was fair to everyone. Everyone is subjected to it equally. It takes a bit more time, but eventually, those who incur enough infractions will be banned. @Waithamai Dragonqueen.
:)
Ah, so you tolerate hate speech, if there is only a little bit?
Jess Nut diaspora
@Dennis Schubert Or they give people who have posted something without thinking about the implications the chance to correct the issue before completely banning them.
What @Jess Nut said.
Some people like to see how far they can push the envelope. Some people get triggered through past abuse or trauma. Some people have a very bad day and lash out. Some people are mentally ill and forget to take their meds. Some people get drunk, or want to show off to their friends. Some people's attempt at humor falls flat. There are many reasons why someone could make an angry statement in a thread or post something inappropriate. When pointed out, they learn and they correct behavior.

But then, there are others, the ones who truly maliciously post hate speech, subtle or gross,over and over again.

Our reporting process has allowances for the first examples, but eventually, the others will get banned.
Ah yeah, and some people get reported to you multiple times for misogynist, anti-semitic, anti-trans, or straight up nazi content, and you neither care enough to delete the old offending content (example: nazi stuff, racist stuff, misogynist stuff), and you care even less if those users just continue with that. And here, I just picked a well-known example, I know of at least 6 straight up nazi users where that is the case. Others get ignored because they don't post offending contents, they just hit like and reshare on such. As if that makes any difference.

So don't be surprised when people find posts claiming you don't support hate speech funny, because it really is. :)
**joe diaspora
Well I would have to agree that if Theaitetos gets past your reporting process, something is not working.
Now, to be clear, I'm not in favor of government censorship of even a Nazi like this. But as I said, it is your right as podmins to set standards on your pod, just as it is my right to block (ignore) him from commenting on my stream and my posts, which I have done.
Oh yeah, I have no problem with pods giving them a home. In fact, I have simply killed their profile for my users, and that works fine. It's just... you can't act like you're a safe heaven and you don't tolerate hate speech, while at the same time, you're.. tolerating hate speech. That's the funny part.
@**joe I respect the privacy of individual users, so I'm not going to comment on him. However, he's certainly posted enough about our interactions with him for you to see for yourself if your statement is accurate.
@Dennis Schubert we have no reports in file from you. If you wish to report to us, you may add me or Nathan to an aspect and DM us directly. You can also write to us at plusporaemail@gmail.com. please send screenshots, a link and details of offense.
@Di Cleverly isn't this obviously? Also, there are links already and the user is well known at all.. feels pretty inconsequent, not funny but a bit sad..

@Dennis Schubert Thanks for the concrete examples! Not seen them before.
Let me make sure I understand this. Two people, who aren't on this pod, who have never reported anything to us, are now complaining about something that hadn't been done that they never mentioned before?
I'm having trouble understanding how this logically fits together? If you never brought this complaint before and never discussed the process with us, how do you feel you can be offended by us not doing something you never asked us to do?
**joe diaspora
You do not understand this.
we have no reports in file from you.
I know for a fact that members of Geraspora's team, mainly @Waithamai Dragonqueen, have reported contents I mentioned, because they told me so. I also know that multiple other users of my and other pods have reported those as well. I don't need to create another report for things that have been reported before, as you decided it's not a matter to act upon. So don't act like you're not aware. Also, sorry, but I absolutely don't care about your interactions with said users, and I don't really care about your process.

Words don't matter, actions do. To figure out if a pod takes their rules seriously, you can ask yourself two questions:
  • Are rule-infringing contents still up and running after the pod's team has been made aware?
  • Are users who previously posted rule-infringing contents that have been reported continuing to do so?
If one of those questions can be answered with "yes", then the pod doesn't care about its rules at all. For you, it's 2/2. And this is the end of the story, no matter what you want or what you attempt.
I feel not offended or so, the point is: The reactions and ignores by a lot of people speaks for themself, within those links showing offending content obvisiusly - compared to the text about exactly this isn't tolerated, i cannot take this seriously, sorry. What you do on your pod is your thing. Some see it funny (only?), for me it's kind of sad..
**joe diaspora
I didn't "complain" about anything. I also am not "offended" by anything you have or haven't done. You made this post about what offends you.
I wasn't referring to you @**joe
That clarifies everything I need to know @Dennis Schubert.
Thank you for that information.
jftr, it wasn't only remote users who reported content and users, it was plispora users as well. after no pluspora team member responded to them, i helped them make their home on another pod.
Thx to @Dennis Schubert and @Waithamai Dragonqueen for their exemplifications! <3
I really don't know, how many reports i send the last few years and nearly never a post of the usual suspects was deleted.
@Waithamai Dragonqueen you came to us just a few weeks after we started the pod and wanted us to block Theaitetos before we had even seen anything he had done or said. We told you the he would be subjected to the same regulations as everyone else. He has had his account locked and he has been asked to delete the offending material. It is there for receipts for when we do a permanent ban, which at this rate, will happen very shortly. At that time it will be deleted.
We have the right to run this pod as we see fit. I'm asking you very nicely, once again, to please back off and let us run our pod as we see fit. We have a process. We are doing what we feel is right and fair; we don't block or ban due to personal vendettas.
My mistake, I looked at the message. The first message was about a different user you didn't like. The second message about Thea was only a few months ago and we had already locked him once and asked him to clean up his posts. You commended us on being such caring admins. @Waithamai Dragonqueen.
@Di Cleverly
it was two months ago, not few weeks after youbstarted the pod. it included this nice list of example postings, with links to said postings:




..so you could check for yourself whether this is content you want to keep or not. you didn't need to know him before the report.
after you said that you were investigating, i didn't ask again (altough many users reported the account to me). pluspora is your business, not mine. i made you aware of the content, the rest is up to you.

obviously, this is content that i wouldn't allow on my pod. but you're free to keep it on yours. just don't celebrate yourselves for not tolerating hate speech then.
this isn't about users "that i don't like". i received reports from several users i the network and was asked to forward the reports to you, as these users don't know all podmins. if it was just me, i'd be fine with simply blocking them from federating with my own pod.
@Waithamai Dragonqueen understood. We clearly have different views of people's personal boundaries when it comes to their postings. I like to give people a chance for personal accountability and ownership of content. Not tolerating, means we don't turn a blind eye, it means we open a dialogue. It doesn't mean deleting everything we don't agree with or don't like. We tell the person this isn't in line with the TOS and has been reported. We give them the opportunity to do the right thing. I strongly believe that life is a series of opportunities to better oneself as a human being. If we delete that content, it denies him the chance to change as a person, to make a choice. That chance is almost gone for him on our pod because eventually the process has an end.
It's a lot harder to have that conversation, to keep going back and trying with someone like him, but we really do believe in applying the rules to everyone equally. It's so much easier to just delete. But I feel like this has been our stalemate for months. You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree.
We talked a lot about the process of how to handle reports here. Like Di said, it's easy to just delete the content, close the account, and move on but we want to give those reported users a chance to see what they've done and correct it. Sometimes it takes people a few times to realize what they've done to make that change. Sometimes those people never figure it out and that's when we close the account. I'm sure most everyone here, me included, have had multiple chances to change something in our lives and we're better off because of that.

We have a process here that Di, myself, and the mods have agreed on and we're following that process.
Fritz R. diaspora
I didn’t want to comment in this thread initially but after reading the comments I’d like to add a few cents. I am both amused and bemused that people from totally different pods comment here and demand from Di, David and Nathan that they as pluspora podmins solve problems which podmins of other pods have with users who are not registered at pluspora … Are you serious and if so, do you understand how Diaspora works and if yes why don’t you address the people who could solve this which are the podmins of the pods they are registered to?
Harka diaspora
@Di Cleverly: Your comments and MO just increased my respect for you and your work considerably! Thank you for being level-headed. Keep it up!
Fritz R. diaspora
(the above refers to users like Theaitetos who have no pluspora account I'd know of but many on other pods)
Thank you @Fritz R.. :)
Thea made an account on Pluspora after we put 72 hour pod block on his russiandiaspora.org pod account when he reached the report threshold for that limit. Once he had an account here, that account was then subjected to the same rules and regulations as everyone else on our pod. So yes, he has posted bad things. He has been reported. His reports have been tallied. He has locked out twice. He has been asked to delete his reported material. The next lockout, which is coming soon, is permanent one.
thx 4 the transparency
As a rule, I don't like to discuss individual private business, but this seemed important to clear up.
He's aware of where he stands in the process.
By letting those contents up, you send a clear message that it's perfectly fine to post this kind of stuff. Users that have been reported to you either keep on posting their shit or stop posting new contents, resulting in offending materials on top of their profiles either way. These users also make it their hobby to comment on new user's #newhere posts, especially on female, trans, openly homosexual, or other users from marginalized groups. These new users click on profiles of people who commented on their post, and the first content they see is anti-trans, misogynist, anti-semitic, or right-wing content.

And guess what? Those users absolutely do not care about your alleged attempts of "resolving" the issue. Besides the fact they don't even have a chance to see those actions, even if they could see it, it would make matters worse, because clearly, you don't consider these things severe enough to remove it. Those users either stop using diaspora altogether, or ask confused questions about the first content they ever experience on diaspora, and why such content is available, even though the source pod prohibits said contents, and also kept a link to diasporas community guidelines up in the sidebar. How wonderful.

It is absolutely beyond me how you fail to understand that.

It is also absolutely beyond me why the both of you turn this into a "you can't tell us what to do" argument, because as outlined multiple times, I absolutely do not care about what you do on your pod. I blocked federation from 9 of your users so far, and I will happily continue adding to that list. Here, we are discussing your marketing stunt, trying to act like you are strict about hate speech, and how that is a straight up lie. Nobody is trying to tell you how to run your pod - people are asking you to stop contradicting yourselves.

I'm going to ignore this thread from now on. Have a wonderful weekend.
Good to see that you podmins are on the same page without having exact the same thoughts about - D*'s a very colourfull place to be - thanks to all of you.
Btw - I'd prefer personal banning too, gives people more awareness and choice.
Thanks @Lasse Gismo.
If the developers could make a true block, that would be even better. So many people have requested it, I don't understand why it hasn't happened yet. It might really go far in solving these problems.
Harka diaspora
@Di Cleverly:
D's Ignore function, AFAIK, blocks any posts from that user to appear in your own stream.
It also prevents notifications, if the ignored user has commented in another thread you follow.
Also the user's ability to comment on your own posts is blocked.

Ignore does not, however, screen out comments from that user in other threads, so you will see them there.

It works reasonably well and is almost good enough. I agree with , that it should be up to the user to decide to take such actions out of their own volition and deliberation.
Harka diaspora
One nice feature I'd like to see is a temporary Ignore, let's say, 30 days, whereupon it reverts to normal status.
Fritz R. diaspora
Thanks for the clarification @Di Cleverly. I like how you handle this. :>
That would be awesome @Harka. Especially if someone goes on a rant, but generally has good content.
@Fritz R. we decided as a team. We have a very thoughtful and balanced group. If it isn't working, we can change it. I do have some concerns, based on comments. I just wish they had been brought to me in a different fashion, perhaps not late at night by people I had never talked to before in a confusing manner. But that said, the team will take everything that was mentioned here under advisement, and see if our process needs refinement, particularly in the deleting of content.
I just read that @murdeRED dreams GrandWizardOfZOG. Very timely.
Fritz R. diaspora
@Di Cleverly It's working well. It just doesn't fit for special people like Thea. We all cherish the right of free speech but he abuses it to hurt others.
Harka diaspora
@Fritz R.: So put him on Ignore. It's not an admin issue but you taking responsibility for your own experience!
no harka, if you dont want your podmin as a tool for hate-speech-propaganda, then delete his account, itz simple, but if you like it, that your pod is a tool in a right wing propaganda war, announce that openly.
if you support the killer (and his ideology) of christchurch, dont hide behind "free speech", thats pathetic!
My point of view...
If you uphold the values of this community, reporting is a self imposed duty. It is what communities are supposed to be about, it is where we live after all. It's our environment, our house. Lets not let this one also catch on fire.
Fritz R. diaspora
@Harka ofc it's an admin issue, see above. The podmins of your pod already kicked him for his behaviour, btw.
Harka diaspora
@A. Randomjack: What 'values' of 'this community'? You can only ever speak for yourself: 'my values'. Ditto podmins.
Harka diaspora
@Fritz R.: I don't care, what my podmin did. That doesn't make it any podmin problem, because you have an issue with users and/or their content. It's up to you to decide, whether you want to engage or not, or whether to even look at it. That's your freedom and I am suggesting, you avail yourself of it. The technical means to do so on a personal user level exist and covers 90% of what's being discussed here.
Harka diaspora
@Fritz R.: For what it's worth, I have voiced my disagreement about that decision to the podmin in question. He detailed his reasons to me, something I appreciated, and since it's his pod, I left it at that.
What ‘values’ of ‘this community’?
https://blog.diasporafoundation.org/4-islamic-state-fighters-on-diaspora
and
https://discourse.diasporafoundation.org/t/diaspora-statement/571/21

but harka knows allready, he only wants to distract that again, the content of that posting are the values
@A. Randomjack we very much depend on reports. Thanks for reminding people of that.
Harka diaspora
@murdeRED dreams GrandWizardOfZOG: Nice try, no cookie! The posts you link, in fact, support my position, that there is no such thing as the fabled Diaspora 'community', but only individual podmins, pods and many individual users! Hence any actions will ever take place on such an individual level and I maintain, that the best place for it to happen is on the part of the user. Because contrary to many others I actually believe, that users are perfectly capable and intelligent enough to make such decisions for themselves and by themselves.
Fritz R. diaspora
@harka The podmins of my pod don't want content like this on their pod, as they wrote above. They don't need to explain about this because it's their pod, but as they are nice people, they discuss and share their decision and I like it and comment it. I know a bit about things like this and I wanted to let them know that I agree. I can comprehend your decision and I will stay here.
the "Diaspora ‘community" is the sum of "individual podmins, pods and many individual users!", but it hasnt a CENTRAL (decision-) instance, but i have the hint, thats B too complicate to you or B you know, but you want to derail the debate, i gave you to links, where these values are topic, under a posting about these values and you claim "there are no values", which is a right wing troll textbook-"argumentation"
Cass M diaspora
@Di Cleverly, thanks for the work you and the mods do and for setting out the rules clearly.
Harka diaspora
@murdeRED dreams GrandWizardOfZOG: So you agree, that it's individuals. Good!

As far as 'community guidelines' or 'values' go, I have my own, personal ones.
I do not see any necessity or obligation to accept those of other people, in fact, explicitly reject them in principle!
Thank you @Cass M. :)
Coming back to my post thread this morning...

Bild/Foto

First, thanks to @Di Cleverly for fielding my thread all night. She has the stamina of a linebacker.

Context.


All this past week, Di and I have been chatting back and forth as I wrote copy outlining our process for banning/blocking for our little wiki. It was something we hadn't added yet, and I wanted us to lay it out for everyone to see so they could understand the process we go through. Banning users or blocking users or blocking entire pods requires justification. We wanna make sure we have receipts when we do so. That's part of why there is a process. There are certain instances where it's extradited.

Example: spam bots and catfishing accounts are immediately nuked when discovered/reported.

But real users we try to take through a process. I personally super disagree with the way Twitter, for example, applies their terms and policies all willy-nilly. This recently came to a head when they had to explain why some tweets which broke their terms weren't being removed. They explained that they made exceptions for certain public figures for the sake of news or public interest. And confirmed that basically some high profile figures are not held by the same standard as other users. That's just wrong. We should all be held to the same standard. No special treatment. In a rather generic way to put it, not everyone has free speech on Twitter--some experience more freedom in their speech than others.

Below is a screenshot of my current draft that highlights our process. Some of the language may change before being published, but the process should be properly documented here.



More context.


Before I could finish and publish the copy for the wiki this week, the events in New Zealand happened. We discussed and decided we wanted to be proactive in making sure content like the video made by the shooter would not be made available on our pod -- when it was being glorified. I posted this post (above) as my first step in being proactive. I wanted to remind our users that this type of content is not tolerated in our pod.

When people report such content, we sift through it and try our best to remove such content (whether posts or comments), and primarily rely on reports for this. We also encourage our users to moderate their own posts, by deleting unwanted comments from their threads, and point them to the Ignore feature as well. In some instances, procedure being followed, we will also ban or block users. But every step of the way, we're not tolerating it by removing content, disciplining violators, and removing users when the threshold has been met.

More responses to this thread (as I'm waaaay behind on my own post, le sigh).

  • @Dennis Schubert I'd like to thank you for pointing us to some posts. I do not believe I had seen those, and somehow they slipped through our fingers, I don't know what else to say to that -- other than sorry. Those posts are pretty obvious. Referencing the process above, they have been added to the tally. This was your first time reporting these to us, and I thank you for that. I know you felt like you shouldn't have to because you felt someone else had done so, but that breaks down our process. We rely on these reports. By not engaging in reports, it lets things slip by.
  • New users being harassed. This is truth. I only this past week dealt with one such scenario. But I was overwhelmed with the show of support by our community who flooded our reports, multiple users reporting. Because of the amount of reports and users reporting, we were able to act quickly. I spent several hours that evening removing comments, responding to each reporter individually (as is our custom) to inform them of the outcome of their report. I thanked them all up and down for being so supportive of our new member, who was being harassed. And I wrote the new user a long dm that addressed what had happened to them, apologized for the lousy entrance to our pod, let them know how many of our users came to their assistance, and then let them know about the ways they can moderate their own threads and use the Ignore feature.
  • What about community guidelines? I get the impression from a few in this thread, and other threads, that any sort of moderation is bad. That any sort of moderation goes against the Diaspora Foundation and it's principles. And that's just not so.
As the diaspora* community, we stand together against any kind of discrimination and exclusion. We don’t accept communication based on principles of chauvinism and nationalism. We disapprove racist remarks and downplaying of historic and current fascist violence. We oppose any kind of exclusion and the related structural and physical violence. (Taken from Diaspora Foundation's own community guidelines, known as the Social Principles)
  • Does moderation only reflect the mind of the moderator? No. It shouldn't anyway. That's my personal feeling. Years ago, I was the president of an organization, and I spent 3 of those years in that organization voting against my own beliefs. Towards the end of my term as president, in a rather heated meeting, someone had noted that they weren't comfortable voting positive for something that might be against their own personal beliefs. It was the one time I responded without thinking in that meeting, without hesitation I said, "I have never voted for anything in this group because it was my own personal belief. It's my job to represent the staff and what's best for them, not my own personal beliefs." Ironically, in that meeting I was defending a position that was against my own religious beliefs at the time. Point being, this isn't a new idea. I feel like it's been circulating since the early 2000s. But the idea that we can only represent our own ideas, or that we are who we are and cannot change who we are. It's a "take sides" type mentality, I suppose. It's a lack of faith in people to properly represent a large group of diverse people, even when it means conflicting their own personal beliefs. When I took on the role of moderator in Pluspora, before Google+ had announced its retirement, I personally acknowledged from the get-go that I was a moderator and not a podmin. That meant while I do have a say, and get to discuss and my input is valued by Di and David, at the end of the day I accept there are gonna be times we may disagree and things may not go the way I would have taken them. And I'm ok with that. I don't moderate this pod based on my own personal beliefs. That's silly to me. We have pagans, we have Christians, we have atheists. We have liberals and conservatives. We have gays, trans, heteros, and lesbians. And there's no way in hell I'm all of those things. If so, I'm like a fricking miracle of nature.

Concluding.


I've written too much, but I was so far behind. I doubt there's a whole lot much more to be discussed in this thread. I'd rather see other threads with thought-provoking, deep considerations of how we can do better all around. Constructive criticism and self-reflection is important.

I personally feel like there was at least one positive to take away from this thread. And because of that, we're currently reviewing our process above. We still stand firmly in what we've said above, but it's possible there are scenarios where we can do better. So much in life is about self-reflection, looking back with hind's sight, and trying to determine if one could have done better.

Let's be excellent to each other, as Diaspora would have us be.
@Di Cleverly I may be missing something here but I haven't seen any mention in the thread of what the legal constraints are as far as content is concerned. I raise the question because here in France there are strict laws governing what can or cannot be published on the Internet and according to the official government website "Content published on the internet may be pursued by the French courts:
if it is available in France and in French,
or if it affects the interests of a person living in France.
And this, even if the author is not in France and even if the site where the content is located is not a French site."
Correct @Wayne Sutton. We do take into account the local laws where the server presides. This guides us a lot too. For example, we have a process for reporting child pornography to proper authorities who can conduct a thorough investigation and hopefully locate and help the victims.
Thanks @Nathan Weaver If we take a specific example of say hate speech. The French govt. website indicates that if it is on a server outside France, but is in French and can be accessed in France, then it falls under the jurisdiction of the French courts. I'm not an expert in these matters by any means but this would imply that for all Diaspora servers accessible in France any French content falling within the French definition of hate speech has to be removed. If this is correct and other countries have similar laws then this could be a nightmare to try and manage.
Harka diaspora
@Di Cleverly: You may be a cat, though you'd type rather well for one. :-)
Unsure, to what extent African tribal laws might prohibit cats on Diaspora.
Good thing, I'm not a podmin wanting to apply these strict laws! ;-P
I'm declawed. Meowww. @Harka
@Harka that's probably what Kim Dotcom said about the US administration :-)
Harka diaspora
@Wayne Sutton: Very good point and precisely the kind of extension of unlawful power to be opposed. On all levels.
@Di Cleverly sorry I didn't see your post further back. Thank you for all the effort you and the other admins put into this, it sounds like quite a job!
So, as I look over this thread, it's all gone to hell. And it's hard to follow. This was never intended to be a discussion or thread really, it was meant as a reminder to Pluspora members regarding our stance on hate speech in the wake of New Zealand shootings. We wanted to be proactive to protect our pod against our users uploading or sharing the shooter's content in a glorifying manner. Other social networks were not proactive and spent a lot of time reacting to the content being shared on their platform.

That being said...

We are reviewing some of our processes. As we do regularly and we always adapt and evolve as necessary.

I'll probably delete this post this evening, but tomorrow evening I may put up a couple of different posts for discussion. If anyone in this thread is curious in engaging in those discussions, let me know and I can tag you in the posts. I'll try to create posts around some of the topics addressed here. I'd rather us have a critical discussion on topic and that's easy to follow. If you wanna snap some screens of this discussion or save some of your comments, do so before later this evening. I wish there was a comments lock, like on Google+, that way I could just leave this up without the thread constantly growing. I'm a fan of archiving.

Peace y'all.
+1 👍^^^^ :-)
Let me follow up to myself and say that I dealt with the reported posts above. They have been removed for violations.

Also, if it seems too tacky to delete this, let me know. I just wanna see a more organized post and discussion on other posts. There's nothing worth moderating here, I just wanna reboot and have a good discussion.
Wolf diaspora
Also, if it seems too tacky to delete this, let me know
For what my opinion is worth, I would like to see this thread remain. I disagree that "this thread has gone to hell." I think there was actually some good discussion here and I appreciate some of the info I have learned from this thread.
I just mean, because this was not what my post was intended for. And because the discussions were layered. We did learn stuff and we are still talking about it. I just want to not lose good discussion. I think we can keep good discussion going in more posts that are more specifically geared to a discussion. It's like we all started the conversation by jumping off the deep end and I can't swim!!!! 🤪
I think your plan is a good one, Nathan. It should be less confusing then.
**joe diaspora
I don't think this discussion should be deleted, although a feature to close a thread to further comments would be a good one.
Wolf diaspora
I just mean, because this was not what my post was intended for. And because the discussions were layered. We did learn stuff and we are still talking about it. I just want to not lose good discussion. I think we can keep good discussion going in more posts that are more specifically geared to a discussion. It’s like we all started the conversation by jumping off the deep end and I can’t swim!!! 🤪
Well I'm just sayin' my vote is for the thread to remain.

I see that the discussion here is a bit messy, and some podmin from other pods are giving you guys some flak for not deleting certain people right when they told you to. For what it's worth I think Di Cleverly did an admiral job of defending her position. (and IMHO it would be a shame to delete the exhange.)

You guys are a fairly new pod to the network, but the growth and size you have acheived in such a short time is unprecedented here. Personally I agree more with Harka and disagree with the knee-jerk reaction of recent happenings to start supressing content. That's my personal opinion, though I do understand why you guys have opted for this policy, and I empathize with your position. Many pods simply delete or ban content without warning and I appreciate that you guys are making the effort to be fair about it and communicating with all parties, including the offenders.
@**joe, it was a useful one on G+. Allowed for locking a discussion, but keeping the conversation archived.
**joe diaspora
Y'all seem awfully tolerant of, even sympathetic to, the stuff you say you won't tolerate.
https://diasp.org/posts/cdf528102b3101378ffc7b9da48ce976
https://diasp.org/posts/d6c37e2025cc013700c1536f24684ffa
https://pluspora.com/posts/39ac9c202b2201370372005056264835
Btw, none of this stuff appears to be censored on diasporg, which is the pod I am on, and I am not calling for censorship. But if you have a "free speech" policy that allows for racist/sexist/nazi content, you should just say so and not claim otherwise.
The right to freedom of speech does not include a right to compel any particular individual or group of individuals — EXCEPT the government¹ — to listen.
It does not guarantee you a specific audience. It only grants you the right to speak. And it is binding only upon the government, NOT on any private body.

That said, the responsibility falls upon private bodies to choose wisely what kinds of speech they will and will not hear. There is no reason anyone should have to listen to hate. But it’s very unwise to just go around indiscriminately labelling anything you disagree with or feel uncomfortable about as hate. Sometimes the views you disagree with are the ones you most need to listen to, because if you don’t listen to people you disagree with you will never find common ground with them. And we all desperately need common ground, or we are lost.<
@Phil Stracchino just wrote this on a different thread. I thought it needed to he said here as well.
Just because you listen and have a dialogue with someone does not mean you are tolerating their behavior. It may mean you are trying to improve it.
**joe diaspora
The Government doesn't have to listen either, they just have to let them "freely speak", otherwise they are engaging in censorship. But if a newspaper or some other privately owned or managed forum refuses to give them a platform, it is not censorship, it is called editing. Social media is really a public platform that is privately owned, so I'm not sure what to call it, but just as facebook has the right to set policy and ban certain content, each diaspora podmin has that right too, according to the capitalist laws of private property.

"But it’s very unwise to just go around indiscriminately labelling anything you disagree with or feel uncomfortable about as hate."

That is true. I do not see that happening here. I know the difference between, say, a libertarian capitalist, and a neo-nazi, even if I disagree with both, and consider them both to be "rightists".
The links on this thread, by me and others, are to white nationalist, nazi, neo-nazi, or nazi-like, purveyors of hate, and not just people we disagree with.
But, again, I'm not complaining, or asking you to do anything. I think I may have clicked the "report" button once, years ago, because of a death threat or something like that.
I have engaged in some long conversations with racists on diaspora before I finally decided they were hopeless and I "ignored" them. Some of them have ignored me for the same reason (deciding I'm "hopeless" and can't be convinced of their convictions). You really have to keep at them and basically "troll" them before they do that, as they are here to proselytize.
I'm glad I had that opportunity to really see how they think, and how they debate, so my ability to "ignore" them is good enough for me. I think I may have even steered one or two impressionable people away from their clutches.
@Vladimir - In anti-theology, I believe they mean bashing believers of a specific religion in an attacking way.
Cass M diaspora
@Foryouwhynot IB as well as those who believe there is no god. It was pretty well clarified in the first 3 comments on this post.
Cass M diaspora
@Vladimir It's the difference between slagging people rather than ideas. Specifically for slagging people for ideas you think they hold rather than ones they actually do because of preconceptions or stereotypes. Yes that does allow for dogwhistles but until there is a pattern of behaviour, one takes a charitable view.
btw antisemitism and "racism against muslims" has nothing to do with religion or the "critizism of religion", antisemites and racists use that as a proxy or cover for their racism/antisemitism
Jess Nut diaspora
@Vladimir No one is stopping you from talking shit about a religion or it's practices. The issue comes in when you bash the followers of the religion, especially by spreading false statements about it.

Talking about the Catholic church and it's problem with sexual abuse and covering it up is fine. Calling all Muslims terrorists or saying that the Holocaust never happened... now you are in troubled waters.

The reason that these are reported and reviewed by admins or moderators is because context and intent matter. Sure you could just block or ban people based on keywords and that would be much easier, but also block a lot of legitimate content like people talking about their personal experiences or having a real discussion on the topic. A computer algorithm can't tell the difference between someone telling a story about how they were raped and wanting to share that to de-stigmatize it, or someone saying that they want to rape anyone who likes the Captain Marvel movie because they are all SJW cry-babies.

So yes, reporting a post leaves it up, and leaves the user active for a while as the content is reviewed. Maybe the person gets a warning or two first before a full ban. It's not the instant gratification that people like to see, but it's more responsible than a keyword ban and more fair than some of the stuff we see people get banned for (or not banned) on Twitter.
Cass M diaspora
@Jess Nut exactly!
@Vladimir isn't on our pod, so he really just needs to be concerned with his own pods rules as far as posting goes.
But yes @Jess Nut has explained it perfectly. Our pod reviews context and there is ample opportunity for a netizen to explain him or herself or delete content or comments that mAy cross an unintended line. No one really cares how much blasphemy you engage in. Honestly.
It's both heartbreaking and infuriating to me, to see mods making the same mistake that I have seen over and over in communities, IRL, and online.

It's the old 'give the thief/nazi/rapist a chance.' Let them spread their vileness and traumatize people for a while before you eventually, slowly, kick them out.

Then they go on to the next community and do the same thing.

I understand not wanting to judge people without evidence. I understand wanting to make space for honest mistakes. But when someone has an extensive and evil record on another pod, or another website, do they really need to create another extensive record here?
..and again with their new account, with a new name, and then again?
Cass M diaspora
I don't think that's happening here @nilajones@pluspora.com. I was part of the response @Nathan Weavertalked about. I reported after the person kept dragging the topic back (it took me awhile to decide). I guess other people reported as well. Their content was removed in a very timely fashion especially considering this is an unpaid site. I do think if people are banned their content should be scraped but I don't know how easy it is for mods to do that. It is super easy for the OP to though. I don't put up with shit on my posts that violate my values and will delete comments without hesitation - usually leaving a notice.
Thank you, Cass M :).

I am new to this conversation which is clearly been going on for months.

But my understanding from this thread is that one person forwarded to the mods many examples of the person in question's bad behavior other places, and the mods response was. 'Let's see what he does here.' Then he did bad stuff here, and they went through a multiple-step process of temporarily suspending him, letting him back on to give him another chance, suspending him again, etc. And are now working towards a real ban. I've also seen no mention of how they handle people having duplicate accounts.

If I have got any or all of this wrong, I apologize!

And again, I deeply sympathize with the desire to give people multiple chances and the opportunity for a fresh start. But maybe we can learn something from #metoo?
(I will now be offline for several hours, but will come back and read comments after :).
Cass M diaspora
I think the topic was general not specific. I was giving an example of how it worked when I used it. I certainly don't advocate wildly deleting posts on your threads but it is up to all of us to model the community we want to be part of whether on line or IRL.

I do think this pod is on a track agreeable to me. Probably easier because not a commercial venture and not big enough to be a troll/bot target.
@nilajones@pluspora.com the issue comes in to play when deciding who gets treated more equally than others? Who is to say "so and so" doesn't deserve a chance because they might do something wrong. We have a process, everyone goes through the same process.
Who gets to define this "hate speech"?
**joe diaspora
The podmins.
Since the server is based in the EU, and we have a wider audience, and one of our moderators is well versed on legal matters, we draw on the laws from a number of European countries to make our decisions.

France's principal piece of hate speech legislation is the Press Law of 1881, in which Section 24 criminalizes incitement to racial discrimination, hatred, or violence on the basis of one's origin or membership (or non-membership) in an ethic, national, racial, or religious group. A criminal code provision likewise makes it an offense to engage in similar conduct via private communication.

Articles 137(c) and 137(d) of the Dutch Criminal Code operate to prohibit making public intentional insults, as well as engaging in verbal, written, or illustrated incitement to hatred, on account of one's race, religion, sexual orientation, or personal convictions."

The UK defines hate speech as occurring when a person uses threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, is guilty of an offence if: a) he intends to thereby stir up racial hatred, or; b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby." Among the panoply of other British hate speech laws is Section 5 of the POA, which makes it a crime to use or display threatening, abusive, or insulting words "within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm, or distress thereby."

There are some others. Germany and Spain have particularly strict laws around hate speech and Holocaust denial, as I think most people know.
You podmins seems to be very serious with your PP rules 👏
@Lasse Gismo we take the issue seriously, but we are more forgiving about second chances and the process is on the long side purposely to make sure no one is unjustly punished for misunderstanding, if that makes sense? We are trying and still refining the process. But thanks! ,😁
Well done I wanna say.