1207
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
1207 points (89.5% liked)
Malicious Compliance
18113 readers
1 users here now
People conforming to the letter, but not the spirit, of a request. For now, this includes text posts, images, videos and links. Please ensure that the “malicious compliance” aspect is apparent - if you’re making a text post, be sure to explain this part; if it’s an image/video/link, use the “Body” field to elaborate.
======
-
We ENCOURAGE posts about events that happened to you, or someone you know.
-
We ACCEPT (for now) reposts of good malicious compliance stories (from other platforms) which did not happen to you or someone you knew. Please use a [REPOST] tag in such situations.
-
We DO NOT ALLOW fiction, or posts that break site-wide rules.
======
Also check out the following communities:
[email protected] [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is free speech. They get to say what they please. They are not free from the consequences of those words however. I, as a private citizen and not a governmental actor, can censor them.
I disagree, free speech means the right to express any opinions and ideas without censorship or restraint even if you find them offensive.
You said you will remove any comment that is transphobic and ban if "you make an egregiously off colour comment".
That is not free speech, and it's ok. Your instance, your rules.
They can say what they want without restraint or restriction. They are not free from the consequences of their words.
They can say what they like. We can ban them if we don't like it. That's how free speech works in a consequentialist society (modern Western society is a synthesis of consequentialism and contractualism).
That's literally not free speech. If I say I like to eat broccoli every day and that people should try it for health reasons and you're some kind of carnivore mod and it tickles you the wrong way and you block me for it... That's censorship and the opposite of free speech.
You're telling me that you control the narrative. Now there's nuance to censorship for sure, but you're telling me that if you don't like what I say I'm out. I have to type within the confines of the bubble of what isn't too uncomfortable for you.
I say let the downvotes do the talking. If I go on the electric vehicles instance talking about how (non-ironocally) I love to roll coal and how that's what's keeping me from trying EVs, I expect to be downvoted into the shadow realm. And that's ok. What I'm not ok with is a mod assuming that my voice sucks and that I don't deserve to be heard. Maybe some smart lemmier(?) will point out some doodad that makes a brrr noise and shoots out some harmless mist or something.
You have the right to be an asshole. Mods have the right to ban you for being an asshole.
Making out that they're nasty for having some standards of behaviour in their area is calling good bad and bad good.
(Censorship is when local or national government put you in prison for protesting or ban your book or ban your ideas. That's when your free speech rights are being infringed.)
Where and when in the history of ever has there been consequence-free speech? How is this definition at all useful to you? People have always had the ability to define our own social spaces with rules of conduct, why is this any different just because the social space is online?
Censor and banning opinions and ideas you don't like is anti free speech.
You were allowed to say it. I'm allowed to remove it. Welcome to the world. Don't like it? Leave.
But also: nobody in the world actually likes the idea of absolutist free speech. The founding fathers certainly didn't believe in such an idea.
Friend, I appreciate your mod efforts, and I support 100% what you're doing here.
Having said that, I think there is a misalignment in terms of free speech definitions.
What I think you're saying is that people are free to express themselves, and the government (in the U.S., Italy, Argentina, wherever) will not censor you for that. However, a consequence of that is that you can ban them. Fair enough.
But people are not referring to the free speech in the country, region or whether. They're specifically referring to the exercising of free speech in the community you are moderating. You're saying that "there is free speech here," then it follows that transphobic comments should be allowed (something I wouldn't like because fuck transphobes.) But since you remove comments that don't align with the community, then the community doesn't have free speech - and that's okay. I'm just referring to the contradiction: "you're allowed to say what you want, but I will ban you if you say this or that" - welp, that just means that "this or that" is not allowed.
I think that's what the other commenters are saying. They're not criticizing you for removing comments. They're calling out that removing comments (as a consequence of speech) and claiming that there is free speech, well no, technically it isn't.
Well yeah, but they expect people talking nonsense to get pummeled in the court of public opinion
Censorship and restraint from the government. This isn't that, so the consequences are not covered.
Free speech is about the government not being able to restrict your speech. Guess what? Lemmy isn't the government.
Lemmy is a protocol so there can be instances with free speech even if you don't like it.
This makes no sense in reply to my comment. Free speech is about the government, changing Lemmy instances won't change the fact that Lemmy is not the government. My opinion, views, etc have nothing to do with this. As far as free speech is concerned a community would be free to remove trans positive comments if they so chose.
I disagree free speech also applies to institutions, social or cultural norms and platforms as Lemmy.
You disagree that Lemmy is not the government? I'm talking about law here, not opinions.