I don’t think he is. I think he is admitting that what is considered child pornography varies from a community/culture to another. Does that mean that any of those position aren’t inherently dangerous and should not be actively fought against ? Of course not !
The question about the moral interactions between culturally distant communities is at the heart of this debate, and I don’t think there is a simple answer. And on that, I think I deeply agree with you when you argue that communities choosing who to federate (or not federate) with is a very good approach that mimics real life.
Let’s just keep in mind that this method does not implies that anything that lies outside of a community moral standards should be blocked without a debate. But there are things that should clearly not be up to debate, I do not argue that.
They do not complain about lemmy only denouncing, but putting filter to prevent certain words, which they see as free speech denial. At least I guest, i’m not in their head. To be clear I’m referencing this citation (that I found in another comment on this post) :
And developed by people who hate the fact that you’re alive !
The strong political stance seems to really put them off…
I don’t know, if I believe some comments around here, there are clearly some of them that explicitly explain they would not come here because they feel “hated”, in public, so clearly to deter anyone close to them to come here for these reason. If so, it means it has some positive effect, and it seems plausible to me.
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 mostly agree. And I agree that if the platform really grows, it will come down to per instance moderation and instance admins choosing wisely the instances they choose to federate with. But I think the choice is to make sure to give a head start to the people they want to welcome here. With the recent events in the US, imagine lemmy being the next tool used by “some people” the devs wich didn’t come. Then the platform as a whole would be much less attractive to some other people the devs are more interested in helping and interacting with.
So I think we agree, on the long term, if Lemmy grow, someone will come up with a modified version without thoses filter. It will just take more time. Meanwhile, Lemmur gets to be at peace as much as it can ?
Thanks for your answer !
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 !
Thanks you for your hard work. I do understand mod work is difficult, and should not be taken from granted. Biases are inevitable, or even sometimes useful. So take my comment for what it is, just how I feel as a user of this fantastic software and instance.
I feel like this post happens because bad behaviours happened a lot lately. And if I had to be honest, the aggressiveness often came from politically close people, meaning people defending PRC or USSR for example. I do understand my own biases as a leftist that think it is important to be way more critic than they are about “those communist countries” even if I agree western propaganda did and still does a lot against them. But I have to admit the action aggressiveness was delivered as if they assumed that moderation and administration were “on their side” and confident they would not get punished. And I have to admit it felt like they assumed right. I do feel like there is a tolerance that goes beyond accepting their political stance, but also allow some clearly unacceptable behavior.
I felt for a long time that Lemmy was a cool space to discuss things among a diversity of leftists that disagree but try to understand each other. It felt like somewhere you could try to change your mind about a multitude of complex political ideas. But recently it feels like people are just throwing what the truth is to them at each other. Many discussions feel useless and violent.
❤️ Cheer to all lemmings that try to keep this a cool discussion space ❤️, sorry for not talking that often.