11–20 of 20 posts
Title is editorializing. Freenode has removed speech restrictions on a number of subjects.
Title is editorializing. Freenode has removed speech restrictions on a number of subjects.
Posting comments for the mods is often ineffective. If you wish the mods to see and respond to your concern, email your proposed replacement title to the mod’s using the Contact link in the site footer.
Title is editorializing. Freenode has removed speech restrictions on a number of subjects.
This isn’t editorialized, the change log literally shows the hate speech rule was removed. They didn’t replace it, they didn’t codify what classifies as hate speech at a different point. They removed it. You can argue on whether or not it’s a good or bad thing, but the rule _was_ removed.
Frankly it also comes close to running afoul of the off-topic rule regarding politics.
If you click down on the file to see what's left in underneath, it continues with loads of duplicate rules which do the same thing. This feels like tidying up to me, as a complete outsider.
The rule that was removed:
- Hate speech is not allowed
The rules that are still there:
- Hate speech is discouraged
- Illegal hate speech is not allowed
You'll notice that this has opened up an allowance for legal hate speech, which is merely "discouraged", which of course no malicious actor is going to care about.
Bottom line, yes, hate speech is now allowed.
I wish this submission had been to a blog post analyzing the changes in the greater context of the diff. That would have made an excellent post.
If you click down on the file to see what's left in underneath, it continues with loads of duplicate rules which do the same thing. This feels like tidying up to me, as a complete outsider.
They're not actually duplicate rules, even if they look like it. To simplify things: The rule that was removed: - Hate speech is not allowed The rules that are still there: - Hate speech is discouraged - Illegal hate speech is not allowed You'll notice that this has opened up an allowance for legal hate speech, which is merely "discouraged", which of course no malicious actor is going to care about. Bottom line, yes,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn’t editorialized, the change log literally shows the hate speech rule was removed. They didn’t replace it, they didn’t codify what classifies as hate speech at a different point. They removed it. You can argue on whether or not it’s a good or bad thing, but the rule _was_ removed.
"Freenode removes rule about media trading, game modding, warez, porn, antisocial behavior, and hate speech" would've been fine. From the HN guidelines: Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. Frankly it also comes close to running afoul of the off-topic rule regarding politics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn’t editorialized, the change log literally shows the hate speech rule was removed. They didn’t replace it, they didn’t codify what classifies as hate speech at a different point. They removed it. You can argue on whether or not it’s a good or bad thing, but the rule _was_ removed.
"Freenode removes rule about media trading, game modding, warez, porn, antisocial behavior, and hate speech" would've been fine. From the HN guidelines: Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. Frankly it also comes close to running afoul of the off-topic rule regarding politics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Posting comments for the mods is often ineffective. If you wish the mods to see and respond to your concern, email your proposed replacement title to the mod’s using the Contact link in the site footer.
The comment is relevant for readers, too. It's an opinion about the article, of which the headline is a part.
Would you consider an opinion about the manner in which the article was posted to be off-topic for a discussion about the article itself?