this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
544 points (95.3% liked)
Technology
59761 readers
3154 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
To call hate speech and harassment "toxicity" downplays both issues.
I rather have a little toxicity than a bunch of overzealous moderators lording over the discourse.
If by "a little toxicity" you mean a little bit of aggressiveness, sarcasm, etc., I agree with you. It depends a lot on the community though - in some, allowing it will be counter-productive.
If however you mean harassment and hate speech, as the author of the text, I strongly disagree. If the mod doesn't curb down those things, they might not be "lording" over the discourse, but other users are - because
Another detail is that you don't need to control the discourse to curb down harassment, since it's only behavioural and not discursive in nature.
So IMO when it comes to those two things the problem is not overzealous mods, but dumb ones not doing due diligence, who are a bit too eager to falsely accuse their own users to be voicing hate speech or harassing each other when it is not the case.
[Sorry for the wall of text.]
Wtf is "hate speech"?
A: whatever those in control decide it is, used as a means of suppressing dissent.
Just think about that for a bit. What if I controlled Bluesky and decided your description of "toxicity" was hate speech?
The definition as taken to the courts in the USA is:
"Hate speech is any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability, or national origin."
It has more rigorous legal definitions in many other jurisdictions where hate speech is explicitly illegal.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html
Canada for example.
You characterizing toxicity and hate speech as being related isn't a position taken even remotely seriously by anyone who actually write laws on the subject, and many have been written across the world.
Broadly speaking, hate speech isn't "being mean" in any legal definition... But that is what right-wing talking heads like to strawman it as.
"Hate speech" is defined and outlawed by countries around the world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country
Threatening people based on their religion, race or other attributes is not dissent.
Look it up.
Look up “woke”, “liberal”, ”facism”
Or simply the evolution of “gay”
I know values and meanings that i have come to understand and relate to those respective words. But you wont find a definite definition online.
For every honest academic attempt there is a bad faith troll. Neither actually embodies a literary authority to enforce a meaning to words.
Language is an emergent construct based on human interactions, all of us that use words are maintaining that fickle construct it in real time. Good and bad actors alike.
You're reading too much into my "look it up". It was basically "I'm not wasting my time with your rhetorical question".
I'm aware of what you're explaining (semantic drift + polysemy), however neither is relevant here.