Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FSE meets the FBI

blog.freespeechextremist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 159 posts

Re: FSE meets the FBI

#101

Post by blueflow »

lovich wrote: post #99
blueflow wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its less a translation thing, but: I do not consider it offensive, yet i have to accommodate these sensitivities while the reverse is not considered.

There is zero real world scenarios where someone who is communicating in English in the modern day, call someone an n-word and does not mean for it to be offensive. You mean, you personally weren’t the target of an insult and you apparently are mystified as to why any other people’s feelings are taken into consideration

s/there is/i don't know/

Re: FSE meets the FBI

#102

Post by lovich »

blueflow wrote: post #100
lovich wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe that people can hold a negative opinion of someone else and choose not to interact with them, or does your world view require that people are compelled to interact with anyone who demands it of them?

My problem is that the instance admin does the blocking decision for the user, based on their own cultural norms, not the users.

Caveat, I haven’t used mastodon or the fed inverse and might be off on the details.

Isn’t that how the fediverse works? You sign up for an instance based on if you like how they admin it, and if you don’t, you join a different instance?

I’m failing to see how that is a problem for users if they aren’t compelled to stay

Re: FSE meets the FBI

#103

Post by kstrauser »

lovich wrote: post #98
blueflow wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"behaving like a jerk" by your cultural norms and standards. I understand your position and wish you and your instance a future of diverse and fruitful conversations.

Do you believe that people can hold a negative opinion of someone else and choose not to interact with them, or does your world view require that people are compelled to interact with anyone who demands it of them?

I hear variations of that logic so often and it’s frustrating. It’s impossible for me to infringe someone’s freedom of speech on the fediverse. Someone can spin up a brand new server right now and start saying whatever they want. I can’t stop them, even if I wanted to, which I don’t. But if I blocked them from my own server, some people are quick to complain about my “censorship”, or whatever.

No. In exercising my freedom of speech to say I don’t want to hear their trash, and I don’t want them harassing my users. Their freedom of speech doesn’t say they have the right to force me to listen to them.

(For people following along at home: the speech I’m talking about here isn’t a debate about appropriate fiscal policy, but about vile escaped-from-4chan trash. I’d never block someone for disagreeing with my politics. I’ll block their ass in a heartbeat for a timeline filled with swastikas and death threats.)

Re: FSE meets the FBI

#104

Post by blueflow »

lovich wrote: post #102
blueflow wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem is that the instance admin does the blocking decision for the user, based on their own cultural norms, not the users.

Caveat, I haven’t used mastodon or the fed inverse and might be off on the details. Isn’t that how the fediverse works? You sign up for an instance based on if you like how they admin it, and if you don’t, you join a different instance? I’m failing to see how that is a problem for users if they aren’t compelled to stay

Yes, but the different instance has a different set of blocks (both outgoing and ingoing), so the problem kinda persists even when you change instances. You can't have both A and B people in your feed when they (actually their admins) instance-block each other on sight.

Re: FSE meets the FBI

#105

Post by kstrauser »

lovich wrote: post #102
blueflow wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem is that the instance admin does the blocking decision for the user, based on their own cultural norms, not the users.

Caveat, I haven’t used mastodon or the fed inverse and might be off on the details. Isn’t that how the fediverse works? You sign up for an instance based on if you like how they admin it, and if you don’t, you join a different instance? I’m failing to see how that is a problem for users if they aren’t compelled to stay

That’s exactly correct. It’s a marketplace of policies. If someone thinks I allow too much trash through, they’ll go to another server. If someone thinks I block too much, they’ll go to another server. There are thousands to choose from, each with its own local culture.

People who’ve been on my server for many years implicitly mostly agree with my actions. If they didn’t, they’d have migrated.

Re: FSE meets the FBI

#106

Post by kstrauser »

blueflow wrote: post #96
Moomoomoo309 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you think of a forum that isn't tiny that does not do this kind of moderation that isn't a cesspool? Your theory seems sound, but I don't know if I have ever seen it implemented such that the theory is correct.

I believe HN does it pretty well.

I agree. HN has a strong moderation policy against trolling and other awful behavior. Forums that aren’t as moderated as HN don’t tend to last as long, or at least don’t tend to maintain this level of civil communication.

Re: FSE meets the FBI

#107

Post by aydyn »

Reventlov wrote: post #37
aydyn wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a non sequitur to the statement you are replying to. What does blocking or disliking someone have to do with fact checking?

Actually, what does being blocked by half the fediverse has to do with fact checking ? Nothing, but that's the angle the author of this story chose.

No it is not.

Re: FSE meets the FBI

#108

Post by lovich »

blueflow wrote: post #104
lovich wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Caveat, I haven’t used mastodon or the fed inverse and might be off on the details. Isn’t that how the fediverse works? You sign up for an instance based on if you like how they admin it, and if you don’t, you join a different instance? I’m failing to see how that is a problem for users if they aren’t compelled to stay

Yes, but the different instance has a different set of blocks (both outgoing and ingoing), so the problem kinda persists even when you change instances. You can't have both A and B people in your feed when they (actually their admins) instance-block each other on sight.

What exactly are you advocating for? This sounds entirely like the systems working as intended, it’s just not exactly how you personally would prefer.

You’re using words like you’re pro liberty but the implications of you’re sentences is hyper authoritarian

Re: FSE meets the FBI

#109

Post by aydyn »

noworriesnate wrote: post #56
trollbridge wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate how the U.S. doesn’t have free speech?

It’s illegal to call for boycotting Israel in many US states [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws

Which countries in your opinion does have free speech?

Re: FSE meets the FBI

#110

Post by lovich »

kstrauser wrote: post #103
lovich wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe that people can hold a negative opinion of someone else and choose not to interact with them, or does your world view require that people are compelled to interact with anyone who demands it of them?

I hear variations of that logic so often and it’s frustrating. It’s impossible for me to infringe someone’s freedom of speech on the fediverse. Someone can spin up a brand new server right now and start saying whatever they want. I can’t stop them, even if I wanted to, which I don’t. But if I blocked them from my own server , some people are quick to complain about my “censorship”, or whatever. No. In exercising my f…

Yea, with his clarification in the other comment it’s clear that this guy is one of those types who probably calls himself a Libertarian while unironically advocating for the removal of people’s right to assembly
Post reply on HN