wampastompa

i'm also a Kagi user/fan. it looks good, is fast, doesn't have ads, & the results appear to be better than i get using other engines. the lenses are also nice.

who decides what is hate speech? and why must it always be handled for the individuals by the authorities? sometimes i think people post harmful things because they're confused/scared/ignorant. in fact, i'd venture to guess that's what happens a majority of the time. in these cases, their mind isn't set in stone, making it a prime time for someone to step in and engage in a hopefully-fruitful conversation with said person. even if they dont change their mind, they just had +1 neutral/pleasant conversation with someone they would normally write off (thanks to mainstream media) as unreasonable/aggressive/whatever.

stopping these engagements from happening is worth the risk that a truly bad apple exists in the public eye (before being banned or whatever), because these seemingly inconsequential interactions can lead to a better social ecosystem that is more self-sustaining. one that balances itself out from within, by individuals' efforts, not the efforts of admins. admins should focus on keeping obviously illegal activity at a minimum, not on deciding what is morally good or bad. individuals have the block/mute button for that?

it's impossible to erect walls, virtual or physical, that keep only bad actors at bay. inevitably, vulnerable individuals/people will find themselves trapped on the wrong side of enemy lines. in real life, that's much scarier than online. defederating from one's neighborhood isn't a thing. online networks can indirectly (maybe??) help make those neighborhoods better by leading by example and providing evidence that everyone can get along and benefits from doing so. people in certain parts of the world will never physically interact with X or Y kind of people. the internet is people's only exposure to certain cultures and ideas. might as well help make that exposure good instead of hoping whatever exposure they get elsewhere is positive.

i think the internet can be an incredibly powerful force for changing minds for the better (which can create a safer IRL space for all, indirectly), but that doesnt happen if zero discussion ever happens, even if that means including some differing/bad voices at times.

we aren't fully aware of the powerful tool in our hands, especially when outside the grasp of centralized capitalist platforms. now's the time to reimagine social media and not play by some megacorp's growth-at-all-costs rules. hate fuels algorithms. hate keeps their social media platforms alive & monetized. we've been conditioned to believe hate must always beget hate... because it's profitable. online, everyone is weirdly guilty until proven innocent. it's easier to believe that's true when people aren't in front of you too. they're just NPCs with funny names & avatars, not complex humans that have their share of good & bad days.

just because something is said, or discussed, doesn't make it true or dangerous. the human mind is cool because it can can basically create VMs and toy around with ideas without risking damage to the rest of the mind. devil's advocates aren't devils when they take off their cosplay horns.

"free speech" to me isn't being able to harass or incite violence. it means being free to say & think things without always meaning them. or being allowed to be wrong/uninformed. freedom of speech depends heavily on context, and i think that's partially why encouraging free speech online is so hard (compared to with friends or in offline classrooms), but it's worth attempting (i think). IRL, it's far easier to see when someone is genuinely curious, joking, aggressive, confused, etc.

the alternative is for any and all controversial discussions to only happen behind closed doors, online or offline. but that seems likely to improve nothing from where it stands today.

it's easy to de-federate from instances with content deemed hateful to some (yes, i worded that carefully), but that means that certain individuals' notions of those other people will never be challenged. this protects one's fediverse but shifts the conflict IRL potentially. not everyone can just "turn off" the ignorant people around them.

do you know how hard it would be for a far right person to hate the queer community (for example) if they found themselves surrounded by non-combative, creative, talented, similar (in other ways lol) people? i think (i'm only guessing) that a similar thing happened back in the day with tattoos/piercings. seeing normal (& exceptional) people regularly that look a certain way can absolutely erode preconceived notions over time, like water drops carving the Grand Canyon.

that is what changes minds. seeing other people, kinda like you, also kinda unlike you, living life and being cool.

i think wodespread defederation ensures all negative preconceived notions largely stay in tact. federating and handling issues on a case-by-case basis (or letting individuals handle their own disagreements, gasp!) just seems like a better strategy to me. but i could very well he wrong. i have zero relevant credentials to speak on any of this.

i guess i just personally believe individual humans can & should look after themselves, their friends, and their communities without the need for overprotection by centralized powers — most of the time.

maybe i went off topic there a bit. sorry! this entire discussion fascinates me and frustrates me to no end. i truly think we could miss out on an opportunity to create a better Internet/network based on how this is all handled.

this entire thread is such a massive waste of time & an embarassing dogpile of pessimistic blanket assumptions.

"X will inevitably turn into Y if we don't do something now!"

or maybe facilitating the existence of two fediverses on opposite, equally-corrupt ends of the political spectrum will only lead to the maximum possible amount of hate in the end (from both sides). sounds fun!

pessimism versus optimism. the latter exposes us to more risk (someone could be a shit, racist person down to their very core), but i think the potential reward is better for giving people the benefit of the doubt that they just don't understand. that's just me though. feel free to disagree. i won't think you're rotten for doing so.

in general, people don't just wake up and decide to change their opinion on X out of nowhere. and telling someone to think something is useless... at best.

people need to be surrounded by different people just living their lives in order to open their own eyes and form their own opinions. otherwise everything they see on TV/FB/etc is true in their minds.

"nipping this in the bud" early just prevents self-discovery that can lead to less racism/hate existing in the grand scheme of things.

not all people who have a bad/hateful opinion are bad/evil/right-wing. i reckon it's better for all of us if these people gain passive/active exposure to those they're biased against and realize the media is wrong, rather than reinforce that opinion by hiding away in this thread, spending countless hours peering into our glass ball and seeing the future that will 100% without a doubt inevitably come to pass (because all far right ppl are exactly the same and deeply motivated by hate on a daily basis and are not only unwilling to change but unable!)

we need more cross-political-spectrum crossover in the world. not less. if you/someone doesnt have the mental energy to interact with or see certain people, that's totally fine. mental heath matters. block/mute & go about your day. but i think letting everyone else continue to interact positively/neutrally in the meantime is desirable. some people aren't bothered by certain things and can discuss them with "the other side" to positive effect. let them do so?

interacting with somebody who has differing/bad opinions shouldn't be seen as support for those opinions, though i think sometimes it's seen that way.

walls are bad when they're between different types of people, but they're desirable when they're protecting you from the elements or providing privacy. live within your own walls when you need to, for your own well-being/sanity. but we shouldn't encourage walls to be built that keep out hundreds of good people just because there's a handful of bad apples in the bunch. that's pessimistic as hell & sounds like something straight from a certain US Presidential campaign trail.

if the goal of an instance is just to co-exist exclusively with like-minded people, that's fine i guess, but if the goal is to encourage diversity, personal/societal growth, creativity, then defederating with anyone the moment they have a different/uninformed opinion is a bit bonkers.

not every hateful sentence (from the reader's perspective) stems from a hateful thought. nobody can read minds.

sometimes the hate is assumed because of our own biases (which is kinda ironic).

sometimes it's just an uninformed or ignorant thought (until everyone goes and proves them "right" by fighting ignorance with fire).

if everyone just engaged with others as their mental/emotional capacity permitted without expecting the same from others, we'd be better off in my opinion. we don't need instance god-admins to protect us.

me too ⛳️