is spam free speech? how about harassment? should individuals be forced to weed that out themselves cause any service that does that for us is deciding who gets to say what to whom? or does this kind of limited filtering mean more people (esp the routinely fucked with) will actually participate and it will better ensure more perspectives get heard?
this is my conflict with dark/freezepeach (I prefer jerk) fedi. of course much of fedi goes too far and considers unpopular views abusive.
The solution to spam is necessarily incentives-based; enforcement has never worked, and will never work. Spammers can say whatever they want. You are under no obligation to listen.
You may be too young to understand this (ironically, since you're only a year or two younger than me), but "Harassment" is a very recently invented category of speech, partitioned out from regular speech by people who want to censor and control speech. When I was growing up, the mantra was "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me". Now it's "Somebody retweeted me! I'm being harassed!". The solution, yet again, is incentives-based. People need to toughen the fuck up, and realize that hurt feelings aren't the life-destroying event people seem to treat it as.
social works like email and browsing. (spammers try to sign up on LC). we want no one interfering with sites we visit but given enough incoming shit, we want help at the server level. harassment functions like spam, except depending on what you say here, some will get a lot more "die slur" etc than others. if that all has to be dealt with individually, we will get a biased usage pattern. and people hiding their identities.
> so do you use spam blocking on your email server?
Of course, but you're setting up a false dichotomy.
First of all, the problem with spam is less about what is said than about the methods used. Providing information about a mattress sale doesn't violate my rights. Abusing my resources (bandwidth, disk space, time and attention) in order to push your marketing message does.
Secondly, I'll say it again for the people in the back. You have a right to say anything you want. I do not have an obligation to listen. This seems to be the distinction you're blurring. Blocking your messages from entering my server does not violate your rights. Shadowbanning your account on your server (or on a de facto public square) does. Putting your server on a global shared blocklist does. Freezing your bank account because you said the wrong thing, or throwing you in a gulag for three years without due process because you attended the wrong political protest ... does.
ok, I'm an idiot. you want to talk about rights. bank accounts, gulags, your bandwidth and server space. I do not. we agree on all that. I want better tech and norms such that this decentralized public square can work best for everyone. massive server blocking for bad thoughts doesn't serve that goal, but neither does so much harassment that many don't want to come here or be themselves. if trying to limit that is also a violation of your rights as you see it, we're stuck.
You're not an idiot. You do, however, seem to be somewhat naive and overly emotional in your political views. Children's spaces should be moderated, because kids need to be protected from predators, but adults have no such need. A mature person knows to use the mute or block features, or simply scroll on. Without getting twisted knickers. Adults don't take things to heart and freak out over mere words. Adults don't get so invested in strangers' opinions.
so why don't we do that for spam? a random spam email is no problem.
we employ server level spam blocking imo because a flood of it makes the service not worth using, even though we could all individually deal with that crap. we use email services that block known spam accounts and servers. people move email services from ones that don't fight spam to ones that do (but servers that block good accounts also won't get used).
poast is full of harassers. AFAIK new nas is not. default fedi should discriminate between the two, but if new nas would take a harder stance against hosting jerks, that would be easier.
Great example. A week or so ago, a bunch of poasters dogpiled me. At first I attempted to engage, but when I realized I'd stumbled into a nest of schoolyard bullies, I simply withdrew and let them carry on until they ran out of steam. I didn't get butthurt, because I don't CARE about these people. I don't care what they think or how they feel because I don't know anything about them except that their online presence is vapid. So I simply quit listening. Easy-peasy.
@Vox This exactly. Thank you for putting words to what I was trying to say.
Perhaps it's a result of growing up before social media, but I remember what actual bullying is like. Being poked, kicked, and hit between classes. Getting penned in the locker room by four guys all bigger than you, with no physical way out. Social media has absolutely none of that. It is always possible to simply disengage. Log out. Go outside and smell the pollen.
I made a personal rule many years ago that if someone online isn't willing to have an intelligent conversation in good faith, then I simply won't interact with them. It has served me well.
For example, a couple weeks ago, I too somehow got on the bad side of a bunch of poa.st neanderthals. It went from people telling me to harm myself, all the way up to death threats. I suppose that qualifies as the "harassment" that @wjmaggos is talking about. Like you, Vox, I simply stopped having the conversation. Problem solved. (Well, then I went on my podcast and made fun of them about it, but that's just a bonus)
from my perspective, you guys made my point. they harassed you enough to get you to disengage. others may have been reading you and left too. why didn't you just even temporarily mute them and keep having your conversation?
both your profiles are quite sparse. no lefty issues. you don't argue for lefty positions afaik. think it would be worse or more regular if you did? on most social media, people even post about their family life. not anywhere near jerk fedi. wonder why
or another way to look at it is "why won't most people hang out with me when all I want to do is call them and their friends niggers and fag and tell them to get raped/die? or laugh when my friends do that? I'm such a victim."
y'all are asking them not to block your server. they now mostly don't think about you. I'm the weirdo who wants everybody talking and is looking for compromises both sides can agree to in order to make this happen. cause these convos matter.
@wjmaggos@ryan@phoneboy@Vox ah yes, the same conversation you always have. Why personally responsibilities and freedom of choice when we can be ruled over by an authority? That’s the key disagreement. What more is there to say on the matter?
if you don't think we need any government, maybe say that. maybe somebody here will jump in to disagree cause I don't think everybody else is an ancap. I didn't think you were either. but when you say that and nobody disagrees, how should I proceed if I want to keep the conversation going?
I say I'm against communism. I'm against wokeism. I get blocked by lefties. Who is doing that from the right? somebody on new nas perhaps?
@wjmaggos@ryan@phoneboy@Vox maggos, they aren’t blocking people, because they don’t care. They don’t care about our back and forth. They let it happen. And that’s the whole fucking point. People not speaking up isn’t endorsement. That view of part of the solution or part of the problem is a collectivist trope, that doesn’t play well with individualists.
@wjmaggos@ryan@phoneboy@Vox also, I don’t think we need the government involved in every aspect of our lives. It’s like everything is black or white, 0 or 100 with you.
If there's a spam filter on my yahoo account, it's abysmal. I delete dozens of ads every morning.
I don't think we define "harassment" the same. What might provoke you is null to me. I can't get worked up about strangers typing words. If it was someone I care about saying mean things, that would be different. Or if a stranger physically assaulted me, that would be different. But strangers typing words? Pfft.
A quick search says Yahoo does filter junk but sucks at it.
We don't define it differently. It's people being intentionally annoying to drive you to disengage. It worked. In general, to shut down people or convos they don't like, a small but effective percentage of the left blocks while a small but effective percentage of the right annoys. I oppose both. Publicly. I'm only asking y'all to join me in this. No longer letting them hide under the cover of freeze peach.
I'm a bit confused as to how my withdrawing from a non-productive conversation proves your point. Free speech was practiced by the poasters, while I exercised my right to not listen/respond. I DID keep having my conversation, but I didn't mute anyone because I wasn't offended, and if someone else was, that's a "them" problem. I'm not responsible for shielding grown people's feelings.
Look, I don't like violence in media for all kinds of reasons.
But I recognize that people have the right to do it, as long as they aren't creating a fire hazard.
Not sure why my skeletal profile matters. I don't feel like I need to billboard my opinions in a profile. If somebody cares what I think about something, they can follow the link to my podcast, or they can converse with me directly. If they don't care, an article-length bio just looks presumptuous and pompous.
It only matters because you don't make yourself a target. Your free choice of what to put up doesn't include a trans flag that others' free choice might include. And this means you won't get as much harassment as somebody who does the latter. Which means you don't get as much shit as they do. Which taken in the aggregate means people like you will be more welcome here than people like them, if jerks aren't blocked. And the conversations will be biased accordingly.
Putting up a trans flag (or a Nazi or Confederate flag for that matter...or even an American flag, which shouldn't be controversial at all since I am actually American) DOES make one a target. If someone does that, I expect they are inviting pushback. Some people seem to thrive on taunting others with their flags in our faces.
I can't disagree more. Should social media be treated differently than how we act in public? Should people just take it down or move if they don't want to see FUCK YOUR FLAG repeatedly written on the sidewalk in front of their house. I don't know how that is currently handled but imo the fault is definitely not with the homeowner.
Again, free speech does not and never did mean freedom from consequences. You are free to fly an LGBTQ+ flag, but you'll catch some flack over it. Same if you have a Westborough Baptist Church bumper sticker. Having the freedom to say anything doesn't mean it's PRUDENT to say anything, unless you just enjoy stirring the pot, and I think some people do.
Cancel culture is akin to not allowing a movie to be screened at all just because I don't like it. So, no, it's not okay. But for me, personally, to curate my own media experience is fine. If I don't want to watch violent movies, I can "cancel" them from my watchlist, but not from yours.
I think you may have more collectivist leanings than I do. I'm a pretty staunch individualist.
You're saying it's ok for people to face consequences for their opinions. That's what the left says "cancel culture" is all about. I understand trying to distinguish between stopping something from being seen/heard vs facing other repercussions for what you express, but people will self censor or not make needed media business relationships based on pushback. Censorship by indirect means.
again it's unavoidable conflict due to everybody's right to self expression.
It's one thing for an individual to choose, on an individual basis, what to see/hear or not see/hear. It's ENTIRELY another thing to be forbidden by an external force from either saying or seeing/hearing something.
I would HOPE people would self-censor. That's what decent people do. You don't HAVE to say everything you think about everything. I don't walk into a bar screaming "Eff Biden AND Trump!" even though that's true, and I'm allowed. It's in poor taste.
but outside of government, you're not forbidden by force. it's business decisions. it's public pressure. maybe it feels like force because of monopoly power or the number of people that disagree with you. that's the reality.
my whole point is asking everybody to care more about other's feelings about getting to see/hear stuff. just because you might not like it, understand others might. connect your server to them but also don't harass people. compromise.
I also think you care more about people's feelings. I care more about facts, truth, logic and reason. If I tell someone a fact or a truth, and it hurts their feelings, I really can't be bothered. Biological sex is factual and true. This "spectrum" nonsense is just that. If it hurts a "trans" person's feelings, so what? Maybe they'll figure it out before they REALLY hurt themselves.
Religion has much less basis in reality than trans arguments. They've been hurting themselves and many others forever. I've been told not to talk about that my whole life. Welcome to the party.
Facts should come before feelings but they matter too if we're going to have a pluralistic society.
About being "our full public selves"... isn't that what poasters are doing? Why would you want to deny them the opportunity to put their full selves on public display, with all their crassness and immaturity available for all to see? Or do they not deserve to be their "full public selves" because someone might get butthurt? As you pointed out, most reasonable people will choose to not hang out with them, and that's fair. Free speech still has consequences.
what were you doing when they showed up? that people are having convos and people interrupt that is a problem imo.
I support everybody's right to express themselves and consume what they want, but I also recognize that sometimes someone's interest in doing this interferes with other's ability to do that. I want people to be able to scream in your face if they want to, but I also don't want you to have to deal with that. let them scream a bit further away, maybe?
I think screaming in someone's face DOES violate his/her rights. Free speech shouldn't violate others' rights to quiet enjoyment, and vandalism is also a violation. Again, the right to swing your fist stops at my face. It's really not that hard. I feel like sometimes people deliberately exaggerate and misrepresent what free speech is just to try to dismantle it. Anything can be distorted to ad absurdum, but it's a logical fallacy.
1A is technically only about govt pressure. free speech culture goes way beyond that and should imo. we should all be trying to maximize engagement with other's good faith views, but much of the time that will involve other's resources (as Ryan said above). getting the norms and tech right for the fedi to allow this will matter a lot more long-term than any other conversations we have here now. agreeing re actual AFK violence/threats is much easier than this stuff.
I think it's desensitizing, and may incite all kinds of bad behavior, but I don't DEMAND that NOBODY can watch Hamburger Hill. That's not my place. My place is to choose a different movie. Its a PASSIVE act, just as withdrawing from a thread is a PASSIVE act. BANNING either movies or other people's right to be a dick in public is NOT passive. It's ACTIVE. And it clearly violates our American 1st Amendment. Do I LIKE seeing ppl burn our flag? No.
Blocking a server full of jerks is not saying nobody can watch a movie. It's saying you're tired of having your watching interrupted by protestors and instead of trying to keep watching it while they bother everyone or switching theaters constantly, you start going to a theater chain that effectively keeps them out. They can keep protesting at chains that don't keep them out, as fewer people go there to be annoyed. But you instead join them in being pissed about that.
@wjmaggos@ryan@phoneboy@Vox you have this thing you do, where you project these thoughts and qualities onto a group of people. Often times your comments contain “You think” , “you believe”, as if we’re all a collective group of lemmings that are think act and speak the same, living life on a predetermined rail line.
I am basically always dealing with a bunch of people who all disagree with me and never argue with each other on these threads. Sadly I can't give you my full attention.
and you say this but then you're also the guy who said you try to let your co-host deal with me. that sounds like it's ok for me to treat you both as basically in agreement most of the time.
I have a show where I can be much more careful and try to understand exactly where people are coming from.
Scope is being messed with here. Personal vs public, private vs enterprise.
I use an enterprise to create a private email account where the expectation is that only people I have given the address to should contact me. Filtering for spam is an expectation due to the private scope.
I use an enterprises to create a public account to see what my friends are up to. There is no expectation of privacy, or no harassment, or limitation of who can see what you post.
I'm not sure I understand your point here. Are you saying we shouldn't expect to be able to be our full public selves on social media? Cause that's fine but many people do want that. And they don't think other people's desire to both entertain lots of assholes on their server and not have their server blocked, should override what they consider a fair ask. Why is being an asshole supposed to be more tolerated here than AFK? Make separate accounts. Or grow TF up.
Actually, I didn't answer your earlier question. I don't have spam blockers on my email, but adding one would be the equivalent of muting or blocking someone on social media. It's simply excercising my right to not listen. The equivalent of the kind of "moderation" you're talking about is more like if I could somehow make it illegal to market AT ALL a particular product, one I don't like, via email, but allowing the marketing of other products that I do like.
this is not what I'm arguing for. I'm specifically arguing that the fedi folks who want to avoid certain subjects is problematic. blocking servers for that reason is bad. but because you're getting lots of harassment is a good reason, and trying to separate the two would help everyone. and I doubt your email service doesn't run some kind of spam filter behind the scenes.
Add comment