> https://github.com/tootcafe/blocked-instances
Wow. tootcafe, according to their own page, blocks any instances where free-speech is tolerated. Not threats, or harassment, just social views they deem unlikable.
Wow. tootcafe, according to their own page, blocks any instances where free-speech is tolerated. Not threats, or harassment, just social views they deem unlikable.
Isn’t that the whole idea of federation? Instances can do what they want?
Also Nazism is a threat. I have Jewish and gay friends and Nazis want them executed.
Same here. Wanting someone executed is already covered by banning threats, as mentioned in the comment you're replying to.
Removing unwanted speech which isn't threatening isn't necessary. The most likely outcome of blocking free-speech nodes is control of conversation, eg, deeming supporting national borders as 'hate speech'. Which is fine if you want that, but makes tootcafe seem like a play pen for people who don't like to be around others who disagree with them if you don't.
Why would that be the most likely outcome? I'm pretty sure that "deeming supporting national borders as 'hate speech'" is a fringe position, which would be unlikely to take over a popular instance. Even if it did, people whose posts about national borders are deleted could easily move to another instance with a different policy.
Filtering what you see and share with others isn't inherently wrong. Sure, if I'm on an instance that considers national borders equivalent to hate speech, I might lose out on interesting discussions about that topic. But if I'm not (and that's much more likely), then I won't be bothered by strangers reacting angrily to my posts they see as hate speech, because they'd be blocking me instead.
I think the upsides of not seeing what I don't want to see outweigh the downsides of not seeing everything, given that there's too much content to see everything anyway.
I'm not sure if you use Twitter or live in the bay area but it's relatively common in both these places. Even TechCrunch UK recently described supporting Brexit as a racist position.
> Filtering what you see and share with others isn't inherently wrong.
Totally agreed, but the mischaracterisation of networks supporting free speech as a place where "It's OK to be a Nazi" is. It's also not particularly original, with similar arguments being commonly used by most totalitarian regimes.
That said, the 'nazism is OK on those instances' may have been accidental (or perhaps just unthinkingly partisan) - I've sent a PR with a fix: https://github.com/tootcafe/blocked-instances/pull/22
Making up stuff like that doesn’t help your argument here.
Some may choose to have very strict rules about what is allowed, others may be wide open.
I don't see a problem here.
It blocks hate speech, as clearly mentioned in that link.
> it's okay to promote e.g. National Socialism
Not, it's not OK. If you promote Nazism I'll point out you're an idiot and so will most right minded adults. Something being not banned in not the same thing as it being 'OK'.
How common are neo nazis in 2018? There's a fringe element on the left who believes anyone on the right of, say, Bernie Sanders, is a Nazi. Tootcafe seems to subscribe to this convenient way of dismissing people that disagree with one's current viewpoint.