truly you’re a victim by choosing not to stop using speech like idiot or moron
If you're going to try to get people to stop using words they've used for decades without issue, you need to explain why. It's not enough to just tell people it's wrong and then ban them for it. Plus, they'd ban people with no opportunity to appeal and then still claim to be against authority in all forms. It combined the worst form of language policing with the sloppiest type of anarchist philosophy. It'd be hard to do a better job blowing up a promising leftist space if they tried.
I only saw one instance of a mod banning someone for hate speech. In that instance the mod posted a link which I thought did a good job of explaining the why. The poster then replied with something that showed that they clearly hadn't read any of the link and were just whining about rules.
Not to say that people weren't getting banned without explanation, but I think the raddle team has a decent answer to the why.
They explained why sometimes, but not consistently. And they were awfully quick with bans for a community that claims to be against all forms of authority whatsoever.
Yeah that's fair, I wasn't a huge fan of the moderation there either. I did like their explanation for discouraging slurs that most people say without thinking about it, but I wish they weren't so authoritarian about it.
Which means their line about opposing authority in all forms, even online, was bullshit. They either didn't honestly believe it or didn't think through the implications.
A much more honest and consistent approach is to say "yeah, we're going to ban trolls and bad-faith actors, and yeah, that's a use of authority, but because you can't run any sort of worthwhile online space without something like that (at least not today) we're going to do that and do it in the most open, accountable way possible."
Ehhh I see plenty of people who post tons who don't qualify as trolls or bad-faith actors. There's more to either of those than having running arguments.
deleted by creator
If you're going to try to get people to stop using words they've used for decades without issue, you need to explain why. It's not enough to just tell people it's wrong and then ban them for it. Plus, they'd ban people with no opportunity to appeal and then still claim to be against authority in all forms. It combined the worst form of language policing with the sloppiest type of anarchist philosophy. It'd be hard to do a better job blowing up a promising leftist space if they tried.
I only saw one instance of a mod banning someone for hate speech. In that instance the mod posted a link which I thought did a good job of explaining the why. The poster then replied with something that showed that they clearly hadn't read any of the link and were just whining about rules.
Not to say that people weren't getting banned without explanation, but I think the raddle team has a decent answer to the why.
They explained why sometimes, but not consistently. And they were awfully quick with bans for a community that claims to be against all forms of authority whatsoever.
Yeah that's fair, I wasn't a huge fan of the moderation there either. I did like their explanation for discouraging slurs that most people say without thinking about it, but I wish they weren't so authoritarian about it.
deleted by creator
Which means their line about opposing authority in all forms, even online, was bullshit. They either didn't honestly believe it or didn't think through the implications.
A much more honest and consistent approach is to say "yeah, we're going to ban trolls and bad-faith actors, and yeah, that's a use of authority, but because you can't run any sort of worthwhile online space without something like that (at least not today) we're going to do that and do it in the most open, accountable way possible."
deleted by creator
Ehhh I see plenty of people who post tons who don't qualify as trolls or bad-faith actors. There's more to either of those than having running arguments.
Shh