I guess there is a difference between accepting discussions around a subject with people you disagree with, and accepting someone creating an account specifically designed and named with only one goal : bad faith and low effort posts (yes this is what such a username clearly seems to announce to me).

I spend much time having great discussions with people both online and afk about vaccines, people who are both pro or anti, and it is sincerely interesting. But seeing such a username is as stupid as seeing someone named "vaccineguaranteeyoursurvival". Those username are themselves clearly false statement that are meant to create unusefull discussions.

Hope this ban isn't getting canceled.

I don't know tbh. You can make two copies of essentially the same community around the same interests/subjects with different names, underscore or no underscore. I think "mechanically" solving a problem like that is not a great idea, and that defining if two community should be merge fall into the hands of admins and administrators, not developers. If you are a mod of a community, or admin of an instance, chances are you know that such "clones" exist, and you either think you should merge and do it, or think you have a valid reason to stay apart and are free to do so.

Absurd example, but there is a city named "Chicken" (It actually exist !) A community about cooking chicken : eatin_chicken A community about places to eat in the city of Chicken : eat_in_chicken

I'm not sure... I'm pretty sure sometimes and in some languages, separating two words can really change the meaning of a title, don't you think ?

As often in cool debate, I think in the end we mostly agree. I especially agree with you on the point that reclaiming a word is a valid way of using some slur, and that it should not be to a privileged group to choose when a word is ok or not. On this point I have to point out that this is still the case with manual moderation, if most moderator are privileged. So I agree that diversity should be push in all places of power, and all decision are better made (and more legitimate) with a diversity in the group that make them.

But on the automated part, I really think the psychological aspect is strong and should be questioned. You talk about "human interaction" but this definition is really hard non only to define, but also to defend as an efficient way of reaching you goals. I am quite sure that when the devs made their filter, there was quite a lot of human interaction and debate around it, and the simple fact the put one show that they interacted with other people around them. And is a "manual" moderation a human interaction when you don't see or know the person, don't know their culture, the context, their tone, etc. Moderation will never be perfect, will always involve bad decisions, errors. When errors are mades "directly" by humans, compassion and empathy help us to try and understand before judging (but judging nonetheless in the end don't get me wrong). Why is it so different when an automated system (created by an imperfect human) ? Why is an automated error worse than a human one if the consequences are the same ?

Long story short, I don't like thinking along great principles like "automated moderation is dangerous", but rather try analyze the situation and think : would this place be better if there was not this automated moderation ? I agree that this is a wide and difficult debate one what is "better" of course, but the focus should always be this one : how to make things better.

Thank you so much for your answer, i'm not used to debate online because I didn't feel at ease anywhere else before, but I love it and it is thanks to people like you and all the other interesting answers I get that I can enjoy that and think about it so much ! Thank you thank you <3 !!

(edit : typo)

I quite agree with you that moderation is hardly a machine job, and not saying it is the perfect solution. It sure as it's drawback. I am just arguing that the benefits outweigh them. I would prefer to be in a world where there are not needed, be as of the world today, I admit I prefer having this filter rather than not having it, mostly because of the systemic effects I explained.

I agree that the relevance of he content of the filter can be discussed too, and that banning some words can make it difficult to discuss certain topics. But I think some words are almost always meant to harm, and can be easily replace by more positive or neutral term.

As a direct example : I can talk in this post about homosexuality, and I can event paraphrase to talk about the way some f word is used as a slur for it and how I think allowing it here isn't a good idea in my opinion. See, I can talk about it, be respectful about it. I just prevent to call you a [insert here whatever banned slur] pretending to use my free speech.

I'm clearly "left-leaning", so I might be biased, but I don't agree with your criticism toward the slur filter : the project is open source, and as such people wanting to use these slur can work they way to another version. The devs explain here a clear intention to make this change difficult enough to prevent at least partially the migration of some communities they don't want to support and/or give a platform to. I think that's an honest way to do things ?

It also open up the debate on free speech and how saying some things actively attacks fundamental rights of others. In those cases, defending free speech as a "right" becomes irrelevant since both sides of the debate can use this logic to defend opposing actions. Trying to be short here, hope you understand what I mean !