Hacker News Reader

If you dont like the rules or userbase of lemmy.ml, you can choose one of the many other instances, which are administrated by different people and have completely different rules. There are also some instances which have the slur filter disabled.

https://join-lemmy.org/instances

That's good to know but I was only commenting on the statements made by the developers on the link provided, which I do take issue with. Why this should lead to any thought that I or others who have a problem with this statement would not "like the … userbase of lemmy.ml", I cannot fathom as it is entirely unnatural to me, although I do see it in some others - particularly amongst those who would make a statement such as that these developers have, ironically. Agreement or disagreement on pretty much any topic is not the basis upon which to judge one's own feelings towards any individual and certainly not a group. That is anathema to me and would find the suggestion inappropriate.

The slur filter isn't hard coded anymore since more than a year now

That issue that you linked shows that it's configurable now. What's the issue here?

The attitude and intent of the developers running the project has no bearing here?

None. This is like complaining to Linus that your favorite <kernel feature> isn't supported and then getting mad when he tells you to pound sand when you can simply fork the kernel and add it yourself.

A linux kernel is not part of a federated network and if I fork it I'm still able to interoperate with other machines running Linux.

Are forks permitted to join Lemmy's federated network, and are those that use different filters to those that the core team would want able to?

It sounds like you wouldn't want to be part of Lemmy's federated network in the first place. Maybe use a network that you find more palatable? Why do your preferences trump theirs?

Why wouldn't I want to listen to what myriad people have to say on the Lemmy network?

Because you don't seem to share their values and have a problem with the way they choose to collaborate with others.

Yes, I have a problem with overtly hostile responses to reasonable and polite requests. They could simply disagree in a polite and reasonable way.

More importantly (for our discussion), why would I have to share someone's values in order to think they're worth listening to?

> Yes, I have a problem with overtly hostile responses to reasonable and polite requests

Again - this means that you probably don't want to use this project, then.

> More importantly (for our discussion), why would I have to share someone's values in order to think they're worth listening to?

Because you've dismissed their entire project based on their comments in a single PR from years ago.

> > Yes, I have a problem with overtly hostile responses to reasonable and polite requests

> Again - this means that you probably don't want to use this project, then.

You haven't answered the question why, you're begging the question. You can scroll up and see what I asked and perhaps finally answer it.

> > More importantly (for our discussion), why would I have to share someone's values in order to think they're worth listening to?

> Because you've dismissed their entire project based on their comments in a single PR from years ago.

This is a non-sequitur. Firstly, I haven't "dismissed" their entire project, I've criticised their stated position and the way they handled a polite issue request (not a PR). Secondly, why is that single thread not indicative of the attitude of the developers? Do you have other issue threads available on the same or a similar topic where they were less hostile?

Lastly, it doesn't answer the question at all. Why would I have to share someone's values in order to think they're worth listening to? When you see a question I'd be grateful if you could try answering it instead of trying to answer the straw man version of me you've created in your head.

> Firstly, I haven't "dismissed" their entire project

> It seems that not only has "community of leftist[s]" given up on free speech (as is the vogue), they've given up on real federation too.

This... seems like dismissal. They claim to be a federated project, you claim that their lack of alignment with your idea of "free speech" makes this not a federated project and is an abandonment of real free speech (again, your idea of it).

> Secondly, why is that single thread not indicative of the attitude of the developers? Do you have other issue threads available on the same or a similar topic where they were less hostile?

Think about the last time you were curt with someone - do you believe that it is indicative of your general attitude, or indicative of your attitude because of some extenuating circumstances? Can you please collect some other issue threads on the same or a similar topic that you believe establishes a pattern of behavior?

> Lastly, it doesn't answer the question at all. Why would I have to share someone's values in order to think they're worth listening to?

Because you "have a problem with overtly hostile responses to reasonable and polite requests," which you believe the maintainers are guilty of. Hence, it's likely you wouldn't want to listen to them because you have a problem with how they communicate, i.e. the way that they would communicate with you. I can keep answering this question over and over again in different ways, but I'm not sure how to make this simpler to understand.

> I can keep answering this question over and over again in different ways, but I'm not sure how to make this simpler to understand.

The lack of understanding is all yours, as you've managed to conflate the developers with the users of Lemmy - is it really just them on this alternative to Reddit?

I also wonder why the hostility within a network goes up as the hate speech goes down, it seems counterproductive.

> Think about the last time you were curt with someone - do you believe that it is indicative of your general attitude, or indicative of your attitude because of some extenuating circumstances?

If you were their lawyer or their dad I would understand this need to come up with an excuse, but you're not.

> Can you please collect some other issue threads on the same or a similar topic that you believe establishes a pattern of behavior?

I could try but I already have evidence of hostility that backs up my claim, why would I start working to satisfy a different claim that you'd like to make on my behalf, presumably for your benefit here, when I asked you to back up your claim but you've provided nothing? That makes no sense.

There's something like 10 days to respond to a comment on HN so you can still do it.

> you claim that their lack of alignment with your idea of "free speech"

You mean, the standard idea given by those who support free speech? Yes, that idea.

> makes this not a federated project

Reddit also has servers that talk to each other but won't allow others to join its network that it doesn't control, it's not considered federated either.

Lemmy can do what they want, but they are both being bad stewards, and hurting their own chances of success by rejecting what is typically a core tenet of federation: maximizing interoperability by default.

The nature of federated networks is such that the vast majority of nodes by count will always be more or less default configured, and serving a tiny, single digit or low double digit population. In spite of their miniscule size, they almost always punch above their weight in terms of content produced, which makes sense, given that at least one of those dozen or so people was at least driven enough to build their own platform.

Keeping these small networks in the network is generally very high value, and so generally you want to maximize federation by default. Sending some messages, either inbound or outbound into the ether, without explanation, silently weakens the network and lowers interactivity of the entire federated graph.

Maybe messages with slurs are so bad that the cost is worth the benefit, but its far from a free choice, and it's one that an API team should view as a solemn, painful compromise - hurting the network and the interface in order to keep it safe.

That doesn't seem to be the attitude or level of respect the Lemmy devs give their own decisions however, which is why I'd consider them bad stewards of their own project.

These are valid criticisms and I totally understand your point of view. Thank you for the response!

So when you say free speech do you mean the kind guaranteed by the constitution?

I'm intrigued as to why it would matter, so I'll go with yes and perhaps you'll decide to tell me why.

"Free speech" is a universal concept, whereas by the "constitution" I assume you mean that of the US. A universal concept isn't limited or controlled by what one particular country's constitution (as interpreted by that country's courts) may have to say about it.

First paragraph on Wikipedia:

> Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The right to freedom of expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations.

So, when talking about freedom of speech most nations abide and follow the prescriptions of the international framework supplied by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and further ratified as members of the United Nations. I think it's safe to speak about the universal concept and the national/political concept as being the identical.

Japan has ratified the UN Declaration of Human Rights and has a constitution that is heavily influenced by the US one but it doesn't protect freedom of speech in the way you think it might. From [1]:

> Under Article 230-1 of the Criminal Code of Japan:

> “(1) A person who defames another by alleging facts in public shall, regardless of whether such facts are true or false, be punished by imprisonment with or without work for not more than three (3) years or a fine of not more than 500,000 yen.”

“regardless of whether such facts are true or false” isn't the way to protect freedom of speech in my mind, nor anyone I've ever heard supporting freedom of speech. Hence, no, it's not safe to conflate the concept and the implementation in law, and not just for this reason but because in the vast majority of cases the implementation in law does not protect freedom of speech to even the amount the US constitution does (which is still not far enough, in my opinion).

[1] https://kellywarnerlaw.com/japan-defamation-laws/

Of course, there will probably be nations that will not abide to the strict letter of the declaration of human rights. I wanted to add a caveat to my initial post, but I thought saying "most nations" would suffice. :)

If you're counter arguing my statement with "in the vast majority of cases" I would welcome some supporting evidence on your part. Which Western states have a very different definition of freedom of speech from the one in the declaration of human rights?

Also the declaration specifies exceptions for libel and national security among others, a clarification that can be found (again) on Wikipedia:

> The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".

You can argue that you personally hold a different opinion about what "freedom of speech" is, but I would say that for the vast majority of people using the definition in the dictionary is the correct way.

I think the only country that I can think of that comes close to actually protecting free speech is the United States. There are clear violations of free speech rights in much of Europe and there is basically no protected speech in many other parts of the world. India's constitution follows the guidelines but in practice speech is heavily regulated through hate speech laws.

I'm sure there are other countries that actually take the notion of free speech seriously but I'm too ignorant about the laws of every country to know that. Most countries I can think of have glaring issues with protecting people's right to free speech.

If you equate "freedom of speech" with permission to spew "hate speech" unchecked then I'm afraid you also have a different definition of free speech than the rest of the civilized world.

This is completely and utterly wrong. There are simply no supporters of free speech who differentiate it from "hate" speech, only the opponents of free speech do that so let's have nothing so mendacious enter the discussion. Freedom of speech is required in order to protect speech that others would prefer not to be expressed - no protection is needed for inoffensive speech, what would be the point!

As to "the rest of the civilized world", as pointed out several times now, very little of the "civilized" world has strong speech protections. Germany? Laws against Holocaust denial and defamatory fake news[1], which sounds Orwellian. France isn't pro-free speech either[2]. The UK has the backwards Communication Act and libel laws that are criticised the world over[3], leading to hundreds of convictions a year[4], including for posting your favourite rap lyrics[5]. Canada's free speech protections are anything but[6]. Australia has "less protection of free speech than most Western countries" according to a former High Court judge and there are raids on journalists[7], which we know happens in the US all too regularly[8] as well despite its much lauded first amendment. Italy charges writers for expressing opinions[9]. Perhaps I could complete the G8 with the state of free speech in Russia? Or you'd like to move on to places like Norway that only managed to get rid of its lese majeste laws in 2015? Or Thailand that still has them. Germany only got rid of its lese majeste laws in 2018 after a dictator tried to use them against a satririst, which brings us full circle and we haven't even touched the worst parts of the world.

[1] https://apnews.com/article/europe-germany-business-3d266e6de...

[2] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2020/11/fran...

[3] https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/...

[4] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-...

[5] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921#main...

[6] https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/despite-what-you-may-th...

[7] https://theconversation.com/australia-doesnt-protect-free-sp...

[8] https://freedom.press/news/2020-report-journalists-arrested-...

[9] https://pen.org/sabotaging-free-speech-in-italy/

The fun thing about "hate speech" is that it's almost entirely arbitrary and can be redefined to suit the whims of the people in any given year. Free speech is the enemy to authoritarianism, not its ally. What is acceptable speech should not be able to change just because there's a change in government or a different party is elected.

I'll gladly accept that my definition of free speech differs from the "civilized world" that has no clue what free speech is and has basically no interest in protecting it.

> I think the only country that I can think of that comes close to actually protecting free speech is the United States

Nobody supports unlimited free speech. Everyone accepts there needs to be certain limits. Suppose there is a billionaire with a very dark personality, and you are a low-paid waiter in a restaurant. He's unhappy with the service you provided, and is in a particularly angry mood today, so he instructs his minions to falsely label you as a child molester, and spends millions spreading that false accusation across the globe, simply as a way of hurting you–does any one really think "free speech" should include the right to that kind of speech? But if you don't, you support defamation laws as a limit on free speech at least in some extreme cases, even if you think many of those laws (as they currently exist) go way too far.

So, if we accept free speech has to be subject to some limits – the question is, where to draw those limits? How to balance freedom of speech with other freedoms (such as freedom from defamation, freedom from fraud, freedom from privacy invasion, freedom from perjury, etc)? Is there some objective answer to how that balance ought to be drawn? You seem to think that the US does a better job of that than most other countries (or maybe even every other country)–maybe you are right, but surely that's an argument that needs to be made, rather than simply something which is self-evident (as you seem to think it is).

> does any one really think "free speech" should include the right to that kind of speech?

Some do propose this, most don't.

> the question is, where to draw those limits? How to balance freedom of speech with other freedoms (such as freedom from defamation, freedom from fraud, freedom from privacy invasion, freedom from perjury, etc)?

- freedom from defamation, provide a justice system where truth is the ultimate defence (as common law states have - it could be improved though)

- freedom from fraud, already covered by contract law and caveat emptor

- freedom from privacy invasion, that is part of free speech (you choose who you share information with, hence, privacy is implied and necessary)

- freedom from perjury, there are laws against perjury in common law

> Also the declaration specifies exceptions for libel and national security among others

As I pointed out, Japan's defamation law is painted in such a way as to make it so broad that it affects all speech. Hence, bringing up such an exception is not a refutation of the point but an indictment of the exception itself. As to the "national security" exception, the US's FISA courts are a good example - or should that be bad example? - of why such an exception is easily abused. Have you not heard of Edward Snowden and Wikileaks?

> You can argue that you personally hold a different opinion about what "freedom of speech" is, but I would say that for the vast majority of people using the definition in the dictionary is the correct way.

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia

2. If we were talking about the meaning of common words in common use I might agree on relying on a dictionary but we are not

3. Wikipedia is also not a source of truth in a discussion on free speech. If you wish to argue your point then try to steel man it instead of looking for ways to avoid dealing with those made by your opponents, please.

4. The Oxford English dictionary defines "free speech" thus:

> free speech > noun [mass noun] > the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint: it violated the first-amendment guarantee of free speech.

That doesn't support your point.

And since you brought it up, my own definition:

Speech can be said to be free when one has the ability to share a view:

- with whom one chooses

- at a time of one's choosing

- without interference or punishment (physical or otherwise) by government or society

and that view is neither maliciously false nor a credible and imminent threat.

Free as in Free Software

> If you dont like it, fork it. Stop bothering us about it, we will never fully remove the slur filter.

how is that a hostile response exactly? Its a fundamental premise of foss isn't it?

If I ask you something nicely and you come back with "Stop bothering me about it", how do you think that would come off?

Like someone exercising free speech?

Whether someone is exercising their free speech is not relevant to the perception of hostility in a comment, or similar kind of assessment, unless it involves a (at least perceived) threat of imminent danger. That's clearly not the case here so I'm afraid I can't help answer your question, rhetorical or not, as it's missed the point somewhat.

That was a reference to your line, "It seems that not only has 'community of leftist[s]' given up on free speech (as is the vogue)..."

You seem to place quite a bit of value in free speech, yet are bothered when the creators of this project use theirs to set boundaries, going so far as to call it "hostile." It's unfortunate that you find it hostile - I consider the hateful conduct that they're banning much more hostile and support their methods of collaboration to that end.

I called their responses in the issue thread hostile, which they were. As to the limits of free speech, they're not just limiting what they hear/see, they're deciding to do that for others too. That seems to go against the ideas of free speech and of federation, especially in the open source space.

> It's unfortunate that you find it hostile - I consider the hateful conduct that they're banning much more hostile and support their methods of collaboration to that end.

It is hostile, but how is their hostility in that case justified by their stance against certain forms of prejudice? I don't see the justification. Moreover, the list of prejudices (if they are, they're just vague assertions at this point) they gave is not necessarily hostile. For example, a racist might publish a paper saying that the IQ of one race is less than another's. That is racist but not hostile. If they were to write "thus we should eliminate them" or "I hate them because of this" or, to a member of that race were to show any sort of aggression for simply being of that race, that would be hostile. It is eminently possible (and I'd say, easy) to be against hostility of any sort discussed here, and against racism while also noting that they're not synonyms and that they don't always overlap.

Nuance exists, even when discussing prejudice.

> As to the limits of free speech, they're not just limiting what they hear/see, they're deciding to do that for others too

It's their project, they can do what they please with it. This is the premise of FOSS, which makes no claims as to how maintainers must communicate with collaborators or how projects must be maintained.

> go against the ideas of free speech and of federation, especially in the open source space

Those are your values, not the values of the maintainers. Maybe their relationship to open source is different than yours. Maybe their idea of free speech is different than yours. This is no more than you forcing your values on them.

> It's their project, they can do what they please with it.

Who was questioning that? No one, thanks for noticing.

> This is the premise of FOSS, which makes no claims as to how maintainers must communicate with collaborators or how projects must be maintained.

It is not, however, any protection against criticism about what they choose to do with that project. If you open source a program that actively harms any or all of the groups the Lemmy project is (ostensibly) trying to protect in its claim, would that protect you from criticism? Not in the slightest.

> > go against the ideas of free speech and of federation, especially in the open source space

> Those are your values, not the values of the maintainers.

Again, thanks for noticing.

> Maybe their relationship to open source is different than yours.

And?

> Maybe their idea of free speech is different than yours.

Clearly, it's why I'm criticising them.

> This is no more than you forcing your values on them.

Pray tell how I have applied force?

> Who was questioning that? No one, thanks for noticing.

You're welcome! I'm pointing that out because apparently you haven't noticed that, hence your criticism.

> It is not, however, any protection against criticism about what they choose to do with that project. If you open source a program that actively harms any or all of the groups the Lemmy project is (ostensibly) trying to protect in its claim, would that protect you from criticism? Not in the slightest.

Yeah, I'm not debating that.

> Again, thanks for noticing.

Again, you're welcome!

> apparently you haven't noticed that, hence your criticism.

If you conflate criticism with being against freedom then I can see why you'd come to this erroneous conclusion, and many of the others you've made.

> Yeah, I'm not debating that.

It's not protection against criticism but to criticise is against the freedom of the project. Right.

> If I ask you something nicely

Asking nicely is when you submit a PR as well IMHO.

As we're discussing a Reddit alternative it seems apt to use the phrase "username checks out".

No, asking nicely is not limited to issues that come with a PR.

I just think if devs are working on smth for free and I want them to add a feature and they tell me they don't want to then complaining about their attitude is a waste of time as well as rather unbecoming.

> As we're discussing a Reddit alternative it seems apt to use the phrase "username checks out".

and trying to get something for free and then playing victim when you don't is somewhat akin to being a brigand, ain't it? I'm not entirely sure what such username games buy us given we seemingly both embrace negative connotations in our handles.

Publishing work open source is not magical protection from criticism, nor from requests, especially when using software with an issue tracker that you leave open to anyone. Whether they receive money for it or not is also irrelevant - would their reaction or their decision be better if they earnt a million quid per issue? No, so let's not bother with such facile excuses.

Furthermore, I haven't added anything to the project's issue tracker, and I didn't criticise them for turning down a request but the way they reacted to a request. Please try not to create straw man arguments because they're more convenient to rebut than what has actually been written, that's unbecoming.

> would their reaction or their decision be better if they earnt a million quid per issue? No, so let's not bother with such facile excuses.

It would be super relevant if they got paid a million per issue by the community because then there would be an expectation of receiving something in exchange. Project maintainers don't owe you anything, the whole point of FOSS is that this doesn't matter because you can just fork it and make your own opinionated changes to circumvent differences of opinion instead of achieving nothing but negativity by hand-wringing over tone.

> and I didn't criticise them for turning down a request but the way they reacted to a request.

We can tone police the OP of that thread as well if you like. The way the OP effectively says:

> this [what currently happens] is just bad

> this [what I want] is much more sensible

has the same capacity to appear aggressive in nature.

> there would be an expectation of receiving something in exchange

What's the issue tracker for and why is open beyond the core team?

> We can tone police the OP of that thread as well if you like. The way the OP effectively says:

> > this [what currently happens] is just bad

> > this [what I want] is much more sensible

> has the same capacity to appear aggressive in nature.

I don't see the aggression. If you ask me for something and I respond with:

- no, fuck off

- I'm sorry but I don't think that meets the current aims of this project so we won't be doing it

They're equally aggressive? Maybe you could give a better example because what I have right now is too absurd.