We're closing this thread. Everything that could be said has been said. Thank you
Original Post:
Today, we want to inform everyone that we have decided to defederate from https://exploding-heads.com/. We understand that defederating should always be a last resort, and individuals can certainly block communities. However, blocking alone does not prevent potential harm to vulnerable communities.
After carefully reviewing the instance, reported posts, and multiple comments from the community, we have concluded that exploding-heads is not adhering to the Lemmy or Citizen Code of Conduct. Therefore, we cannot, in good faith, continue to federate with an instance that consistently promotes hate, racism, and bullying.
Examples:
https://lemmy.world/post/577526 - Community Moderator Harassment
https://exploding-heads.com/post/92194 - Systemadmin Post
https://exploding-heads.com/post/90780 - Systemadmin Post
https://exploding-heads.com/post/91488 - Systemadmin Post
https://exploding-heads.com/post/93725 - Community Moderator Post
Again, deciding to defederate from an instance is not taken lightly. In the future, we will continue to review instances on a case-by-case bases.
As for our community, please refrain from posting or commenting with hateful words as well. Arguing back and calling people names is not the solution. The best course of action is to report the posts or comments violating our server rules.
Lemmy Code of Conduct
https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
Citizen Code of Conduct https://github.com/stumpsyn/policies/blob/master/citizen_code_of_conduct.md
βWe are committed to providing a friendly, safe, and welcoming environment for all, regardless of level of experience, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, personal appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, age, religion, nationality, or other similar characteristic.β
Good! The older I get the more I realize that free speech at all cost is bullshit. Every idea or thought does not deserve a platform.
It's called the paradox of tolerance. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
In Spain we have an old saying (maybe it's international, but I just heard it in Spain): My freedom ends where yours begin. Meaning that you're free to do what you want, but not when others are affected in a negative way (your noise disturb others, your hostility affect others, etc). When I see some people in the US behaving like assholes claiming that's their freedom I realise they don't actually understand what freedom means.
In the US (at least where I'm from) we have a similar saying that goes:
Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my face begins
Same essential meaning but some people here just don't get it.
We use it in Greece too
Freedom of speech should only ever mean that a government cannot retaliate against or stifile someone's view on politics. It should never equate to freedom from consequences for hate speech, by anyone.
Free speech does not mean every idea or thought deserves a platform. It's a doctrine of being able to express one's idea without fear of retaliation or censorship from the government. And it is also a very indivisible idea, either you have free speech for everyone or for no one. There is no middle ground because as soon as you introduce the idea that some ideas should censored you lay the groundwork for all ideas to be censored.
Free speech at all costs is not bullshit but also, defederation is not censorship.
Not necessarily advocating for giving everyone a platform but an interesting thought here is how we should treat the concept of free speech in an era where so many important things are under the jurisdiction of private entities. If 90% of public squares were owned by companies who restricted what you can wear, say, and who you can talk to on that public square, that would technically not run afoul of free speech but definitely would practically heavily restrict people's ability to freely express themselves. Meanwhile, this exact scenario is the case on the internet with private corporations owning most of it and are free to remove whatever content they want at a whim.
Iβm familiar with the argument I just think itβs outdated.
Free speech is fine. The interpretation of "free access to anyone's eyes and ears at any time" is bullshit.
Voat is an excellent example of this. Unmoderated speech -> Nazi infiltration -> removed from app stores and shut down.
Come to think of it, are there any libertarian "no rules, block users if you can't handle it" social networks that haven't catastrophically collapsed into toxic hellholes? ....like are there ANY examples of this idea even working?
The thing free speech absolutists never understand is people have tried their plan PLENTY of times, in fact it has been tried over and over again in an exhausting cycle of amnesia. It never works, running a community fundamentally requires choices and moderation.
Itβs a curve, you think you are getting wiser while itβs the exact opposite
Or you can build a better argument and debate the idea. If its not a call to violence, its just words and ideas battling it out.
I believe COVID showed very well that this isn't the case. Not to mention, when you're debating something like an astrophysics concept, it makes no sense to allow a professional basketball coach to weigh in.
Sometimes you can have two people from the same fields with different point of views. Even if they're not, there still may by new perspectives and ideas that may lead to something better, whatever it is.
Of course, but that doesn't mean I bring a freshman college physics student equal grounding to a seasoned quantum physics expert in a debate about quantum breakthroughs.
Even within the same field, you have to look at the weights. If 1 climate scientist says global warming is bullshit, and 9999 climate scientists say global warming is an obvious and clear phenomenon, I'm going to believe the 9999.
Even if just falls down to being a dumb opinion, I still rather be able to be said.
Debates don't convince people to change their minds.
I have a tendency to debate people, even when I already know I might as well bash my head into a wall for all the good it'll do me. But I still do it and here's why:
You're not trying to convince the person you're responding to. Everyone knows that certain people, e.g. anti-vaxxers, will never be convinced, no matter how many sources you cite. You're not putting in the effort for them; you're doing it for the people who might be reading, the ones who aren't lost causes yet, the people who simply aren't knowledgeable about a subject and could fall victim to such misinformation if it were to go unchallenged.
It's a public forum, there's always someone reading.
Edit just to say: I fully embrace this defederation. That instance is a cesspool and no amount of 'debate' would ever change that. I don't want that on my feed and everyone who does is free to join them or make their own instance.
Debates don't convince close minded people from changing their minds.
This kind of attitude is defeatist - if the person you're discussing with isn't willing to budge on an issue then it's not a real debate. We should all approach discussions knowing that we are all fallible, but can correct our misjudgements.
I mean that's literally debatable lol.
COVID-19 proves that rational debate doesn't work. Heck, even the results of recent US and UK elections prove that people are so brainwashed and incapable of rational thought that they'll support their side like a local football team, no matter how badly their policies screw them over.
Arguing with a right-winger is like playing a game of chess with a rooster. No matter what you say or do, the rooster will knock over the pieces, shit all over the board and strut around triumphantly.
Wait I'm confused because people got banned for speaking about vaccines, and a lot more information is still coming out about them. My point is even if that person is a person with a brain of a cock he should still be able to speak.
I'm not gonna lie that more testing could have been done on the vaccines that came out (AstraZeneca was specifically linked to substantially increased risks of blood clots in young people weeks after the first jabs were administered), but there's a difference between this and outright anti-vaxx rhetoric.
COVID-19 was also an international health emergency that could have gone so much worse if every country governed their efforts like the ass-clowns who ultimately prolonged the pandemic by dismissing their seriousness and half-assing their efforts (Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro come to mind.)