@rice @gid There's good evidence that moderation does reduce hate speech. If someone says horrible things about women or about people with disabilities, clear words and actions from moderators that these statements are not welcome do a lot to reduce them overall.


Without these moderator words and actions, the nasties proliferate and even encourage each other.

We have evidence that you don't have to tolerate the bad to keep the good.


@JordiGH @[email protected] @gid the problem is that this rhetoric of "hate speech", "intolerant thought" and so on is just a mask to carry out a campaign of censorship towards ideas considered "not politically correct" and push neoliberism, globalism, imperialism etc. It's just an ideology that makes people think they are "the good guys while the world is affected by some sort of viral disease that makes the others intolerant and bad"... and this makes most people elitist.

@kelly_clowers @alexl @JordiGH @rice @gid exactly, wtf did I just read.
Getting bigots who make everyone uncomfortable out of the platform is somehow an imperialism.
Galaxy brain dot jpeg.

@alexl I was wondering if someone would say something like this.

This is incorrect. Banning people who like to say how much they hate fat people and banning people who talk about how much they want to kill all black people does not mean that we are pushing neoliberalism.

@JordiGH replace "ban users" with individual block by other user and we have the decentralization of power we need in a democracy. What people were asking to were just authoritarianism. Purism bans for harassment, that is enough and it has nothing to do with ideas, bigotry and so on.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!