Welp. I blocked my first domain "freespeechextremist". I'm all for free speech -- I consider myself a 'free speech absolutist'. However, I have no patience for idiots who make social media accounts just to see how uncomfortable they can make others feel.
Unfortunately this is part of free speech. But not all of it. I tend to mute individual users since there are not many.
That’s kinda a soy reason to block an entire instance. Plenty of cool people on FSE.
I agree. It's not "NAXALT" to say that there are good people everywhere and in every demographic, racial, ethnic, and religious group.
Including basement-dwelling anarcho-misanthrophic shitposters.
@amerika @verita_84 I'm sure there are good people there. But I'm interested in having a good 'signal to noise' ratio here rather than trying to engage with everyone. In my experience, the people who would loudly identify with 'free speech extremism' are not people I feel like engaging with (especially on Mastodon where there is no monopoly moderator)
@verita_84 @amerika The current wave of 'free speech' advocates are usually disingenuous opportunists. Even the sincere people can be insufferably naive (as I once was), and I'm not here to engage with them (at least with this account). If I recieve trolling comments from an instance called "LGBTQuberAlles", I'll probably block that instance too.
There are always going to be G.G. Allins in with the Cro-Mags and Amebix types.
Personally, I think it is useful to have LGBT people hanging around as well. Kick the window open in another direction that is sometimes outside of the politics sphere.
I am not an egalitarian.
Therefore, it depends on the LGBT person.
A good person is a good person. Demographics is important and not all behaviors need to be socially validated (some are private, like swinging, smoking weed, being LGBT, etc) but it is useful to have productive minds linked up.
Yeah, some gays are pretty based and cool. I just hate the fags (straights with pronouns and trannies)
@verita_84 @amerika. Going off like that about people you hate will get you blocked/ostracized -- both online and in real life -- and it will be your own damn fault.
Under the old order, yes.
I think the future is actual pluralism: realizing that there is no standard for all people.
@verita_84 @amerika Definitely. You went straight to "I hate the fags" in a conversation about free speech and blocking instances. You're just wasting my time.
It's part of freedom that some people dislike and disassociate from LGBT.
Oh well.
I still think this is backdoor egalitarianism. No one is equal. Not all LGBT are the same.
Pick the good people, discard the bad.
I like the lack of monopoly moderator. That is a heavy burden that will end up norming things.
In the same way, having the freaks n' geeks is useful because it keeps conversation from dropping into a monoculture.
@amerika I agree about the monopoly moderator. My point was that there is no reason to fuss about "free speech" on a platform without any monopoly moderator. Free speech is implicit here (aside from the legal restrictions on free speech, which it seems like 'freespeechextremist' has no intent of challenging). Anyway, I looked at the freespeechextremist website some more, and it looks like it's not just an mastodon instance, so maybe the name isn't so obnoxious.
Free Speech Extremist is an interesting site. I'm going to tag in the admin here @p because he can tell you about his custom back end Revolver.
I like Radical Free Speech (#RFS) because it prevents hugboxing, which is like an entropy of repetition. Hard to get clearer on it but it kills the energy of forums.
When I ran dial-ups, I always kept around the articulate dissidents of all types.
This is the only way to avoid viewpoint discrimination. Conversation had to stay civil.
Revolver is intended to distribute fedi; most of what I have to say about it is on the blog, I think. The problem with fedi as currently structured is that servers are points of failure (old posts stop federating when the server dies, for example; people can't log into their old accounts, another problem; tying identity to a location has unfortunate consequences as well) and hosting one with open registrations means incurring liability for other people's posts, but if this can be fixed. There's no real escape valve for any of this.
That is another solid point: we need hypotheticals and a wide Overton Window (in any topic) in order to understand our own minds.
@amerika @p 'pistolero' - thanks for sharing your thoughts and working on revolver. I agree that the ideal 'social media' would fully empower individuals to decide who they want to interact with and how. 'amerika' - you forced me to unblock the site so that I could hear from pistolero! Anyway, on the topic of Overton Window, I don't think we maximize our exposure to useful concepts by receiving a unfiltered flow of speech. Much (most?) speech is either social posturing or lies. It does not introduce me to new ideas -- it just wastes my time that I could be using to engage with new ideas. People need to be deliberate about how they gather information -- seeking a balance between open exploration and having a system to filter out the noise. I personally tend to alternate between periods of exploring new ideas and periods of more concentrated engagement with the ideas I've already found.
"I don't think we maximize our exposure to useful concepts by receiving a unfiltered flow of speech. Much (most?) speech is either social posturing or lies."
The only way to find the lies is to have the more accurate stuff in there somewhere, in my view. That requires a culture that prizes realism. That in turn is a meta-goal worthy of achieving.
"I personally tend to alternate between periods of exploring new ideas and periods of more concentrated engagement with the ideas I've already found."
This is normal, I think. I call the latter "digestion."
"Anyway, on the topic of Overton Window, I don't think we maximize our exposure to useful concepts by receiving a unfiltered flow of speech."
Also, in a bigger sense: without kicking that Overton Window open, certain things will become un-discussable.
That is the history of political correctness from the 1990s through now.
> thanks
> I don't think we maximize our exposure to useful concepts by receiving a unfiltered flow of speech.
Not quite the point. The question is not whether any filtering ever occurs; the question is whether you decide what you filter or someone else decides on your behalf.
> People need to be deliberate about how they gather information -- seeking a balance between open exploration and having a system to filter out the noise.
That's up to the people that decide what information they want and what the balance is; if someone else is steering the system, you no longer have the option. You dislike what you describe as "social posturing or lies", some people like that stuff. I don't want anyone deciding on my behalf.
Expanding on this:
If someone controls the flow of speech, that becomes a property with real value to those who advertise and want to control minds.
This means that scheming will result, followed by corruption.
"Civil," for me, means a culture (not necessarily moderator action) that minimizes use of obscenities, slurs, cruelty toward individuals on the site, and so on.
This is different from viewpoint discrimination:
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1028/viewpoint-discrimination
I get it. So interacting with trannies and LGBTq supporters is better?