Hey could we defederate with exploding-heads.com/
Hey could we defederate with exploding-heads.com/
The instance seems to be mostly right wing trolls. I know defederating is unpopular but I don't think much is to be lost in this case and it can save the mods some headaches.
Edit: the response on exploding-heads.com to my reporting of transphobia. Courtesy of the "second in command"
You're viewing a single thread.
We should absolutely not turn to defederation as a first action. You know how traditional social media bans opinions that are not acceptable according to themselves?
We must be better than that. It creates a ridiculous otherwise where people think everyone agrees with them and they are never challanged in how they think about things.
I think we should be exposed to different opinions as long as it's within the rules, meaning people must be polite, not hateful, not breaking the law etc.
Read up on the Paradox of Tolerance, please. "We must be better than them" is a call for total tolerance, which will inevitably lead to the disappearance of tolerance, and that cannot be allowed to happen. It is simply impossible to have a community where transphobes and trans people coexist happily together, and I'll choose the side that's not trying to hurt others (trans people, in case that wasn't clear) every day.
Every censorship-enjoyer loves talking about the Paradox of Tolerance. Here's the part Popper said that they like to gloss over:
I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.
But certainly the proposed defederation isn't the same as suppressing utterance, considering there would remain a publicly accessible instance for that speech. This would be closer to keeping in check by public opinion, since it's the action of exterior social forces.
Nobody's talking about censorship. Anybody who wants to see that kind of stuff can still just go to the defederated instance without any problem, and nobody is arguing for that possibility to be taken away.
Also, no, I'm not glossing over that part. Instead, you seem to be glossing over this part of your own quote:
as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion
In an age where transphobic legislation is passed left and right at an alarming rate, you can not tell me in good consciousness that transphobia and similar intolerant ideologies are actually successfully being kept in check by public opinion right now, and rational argument does jack shit, as evidenced by, well, the whole of public discourse about the topic apparently not having any bearing on said legislation.
social media bans opinions
Hate is not an opinion
How is it not? It may be an opinion stemming from a feeling but it's still an opinion isn't it?
it breaks the social contract of tolerance and seeks to end discourse by killing the participants when escalated to its final form. hate groups are no more participants in discourse than fire is an architectural style for building a house.
we don't have to take seriously the folks that suggest "let's set it on fire" when discussing whether we want to build a victorian or modern style home because they are not serious people and their poor ideas have been proven idiotic too many times to count.
Definitionally is