Controversial - the place to discuss controversial topics

434 readers

1 users here now

Controversial - the community to discuss controversial topics.

Challenge others opinions and be challenged on your own.

This is not a safe space nor an echo-chamber, you come here to discuss in a civilized way, no flaming, no insults!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, "trust me bro" is not a valid argument.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Hastur

Calls for defederation - Is the idea of the open marketplace of ideas outdated? (self.controversial)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Hastur to c/controversial

143 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Lately I see a lot of calls do have specific instances defederated for a particular subset of reasons:

Don't like their content
Dont like their political leaning
Dont like their free speech approach
General feeling of being offended
I want a safe space!
This instance if hurting vulnerable people

I personally find each and every one of these arguments invalid. Everybody has the right to live in an echo chamber, but mandating it for everyone else is something that goes a bit too far.

Has humanity really developed into a situation where words and thoughts are more hurtful than sticks and stones?

Edit: Original context https://slrpnk.net/post/554148

Controversial topic, feel free to discuss!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] SenatorBumCuckets 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

These are private instances run by private entities. There is no "lawful freedom of speech" because no governments are involved. Furthermore, lemmy is global, not just American.

[+] Hastur -7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Lemmy is not private just because instances are owned by individuals. If you post or comment you broadcast which is public and regulated by free speech laws where applicable.

[–] SenatorBumCuckets 10 points 1 year ago

Are you trolling me right now

[–] dnick 7 points 1 year ago

You seem to have a simply wrong understanding of freedom of speech. Just because it's the internet, doesn't make it a right for you to get your voice heard anywhere you want it. Just like people can walk away or plug their ears if you are shouting in a public park, they can choose not to join a group you are in online. If I set up a podcast, I'm not infringing on your rights if I don't let you on. If I let 100 other people join whenever they want but don't let you join, I'm not infringing on your rights, I'm exercising my own. Just because an instance becomes popular, that doesn't magically take away the rights of the person running it to let people on or choose to, or not to, associate with some other group.

Federation is messy, and will have it's share of bigots and power hungry users and owners, but your 'freedom of speech' means the government can't limit your speech, not that everyone else has to enable it.

I do understand that it's confusing because centralized platforms like Twitter and Reddit and Facebook have grown to the size and scope where they are nearly public utilities and have started approaching the level where freedom of speech may become a consideration(if they have a near monopoly and you are almost effectively silenced by a ban from those platforms) but federated instances are literally the opposite of that. Don't like how an instance treats you? Join a different one or start your own. But consider each instance as a small club that can let you in or block you, that can join up with any other group that it wants... Not something that is obligated to vote on every decision, or obey the US ten commandments.