Does law speech kill community projects?

Over the last few days, there has been quite some discussion about the new terms of use (TOS) of mastodon.social.

Something similar happened months ago with Mozilla/Firefox.

Rules are essentially a good thing.

They aim to provide clarity and security to all involved parties.

Both projects failed miserably in their respective attempts.

People with extensive knowledge of the subject have debated endlessly

1/5

#Mastodon #Fediverse #Mozilla #Firefox

@mina

The censorship is killing the Fediverse.

@monarchist

Which censorship are you talking about?

@mina

The constant defederation of nodes and banning of users.

@monarchist

I have heard of some cases of misjudgement, but I, honestly, don't see a pattern there.

Obviously, for larger instances it is rather difficult to look into every case in detail, just in terms of workload.

Moderation is an important part of running a network. Errors occur, but I have yet to see a systematic discrimination of well willing users within the network.

@mina

I think you are not looking.

Notice the mainstream Fediverse sites are all little hugboxes where everyone shares the same opinions?

@freepatriot @p @sun @dcc @eriner @na

@monarchist

Might be, but I do see lots of discussions with different opinions.

There are several pretty controversial topics, besides the general agreement that capitalism sucks and nazis are full of shit.

Nevertheless: Hugging and being nice and friendly to each other is, in principle, a good thing.

@freepatriot @p @sun @dcc @eriner @na

@mina @monarchist @freepatriot @sun @dcc @eriner @na

> besides the general agreement that capitalism sucks and nazis are full of shit

My first thought when I see this kind of thing is "Yeah, fuck nazis" but then I remember that you almost certainly mean something much broader when you say "nazi" than the colloquial version of that word. Nazism is a specific brand of totalitarianism that, having been vilified (and rightly so), is now used as a bogeyman (which is disastrous). "Freedom of speech" is essentially the opposite of nazism, and gets painted with that brush over and over.

> Nevertheless: Hugging and being nice and friendly to each other is, in principle, a good thing.

I do not want a hug.

Niceness is a meek deference used to *appear* kind: be nice to the waitress, be nice to your mom, by all means, but fuck's sake, here? Friendliness and respect, sure, but I don't see a lot of that on Canceldon: I do see a lot of people

@Scubbie @p @dcc @mina @freepatriot @na @eriner @sun

Canceldon uses "niceness" as a pretext for removing anyone who is off-narrative.

Niceness is a method, not a goal. The goal is to have a balanced discussion so we all learn something and ideally come to agree on some of the issues.

Follow

@monarchist @p @dcc @mina @freepatriot @na @eriner @sun

Polite society has failed,nothing can be learned or agreed upon "Everyone must play nice",when the rules are set to herd you by those who make the rules,but live outside the rules.The Blackpill is there is no solution,just like a bunch of cows funneled thru pens and corrals in a single line encouraging forward movement preventing seeing what is ahead the abattoir awaits internet discussion solves nothing the Alpha and Omega is set

@Scubbie @monarchist @dcc @mina @freepatriot @na @eriner @sun "Peoples is bein' a little too passive-aggressive last few years...fuck it, this is the end of the world and we're all going to die."

k

@p @dcc @mina @Scubbie @freepatriot @na @eriner @sun

I think we need goals, not rules.

I don't trust rules; they are meant to be worked around.

Even more, they get you thinking backward from effect to cause, and that messes your mind up.

It's the basis of Crowdism.

@monarchist @dcc @mina @Scubbie @freepatriot @na @eriner @sun

> I don't trust rules; they are meant to be worked around.

Rules exist for people that behave as an aggregate. It's a threshold for acceptability: if you are really determined, then ignore the rule. You can't fight a war on all fronts, though, so people break rules selectively, and this allows society to not collapse completely. (This is, of course, exploited by people in a position to dictate rules.)

@p @dcc @mina @Scubbie @freepatriot @na @eriner @sun

Yes, but I see it a little differently (big surprise).

Rules are method-based, where we need goal-based thinking.

This is roughly analogous to what Jesus H and Buddha were on about.

Plato riffs on this too with his biological determinism visualized as destiny relayed by the gods.

@monarchist @dcc @mina @Scubbie @freepatriot @na @eriner @sun I think people are indeed too literal-minded, so the remark about castigating the Pharisees is accurate, and not just about rules, but anything: you say "a couple dozen" and if it's 23 or 25, they lose their shit. This tendency spills over to the news, where they assume that numbers burst from the heads of experts, in full battle dress: you ask "How did they get that figure?" and they have no answer, because the question doesn't even make sense: they think food comes from the supermarket and numbers come from journalists.

Have you read "The Savage Mind"? I think they way it ties into this topic might be of interest to you.
the_savage_mind--claude_levi-strauss.pdf

@p @dcc @mina @Scubbie @freepatriot @na @eriner @sun

No, but it is now in queue.

Most people like symbolism. Numbers from journalists "seem" like hard, clear facts one can depend on.

Really it is the pursuit of crutches.

@monarchist @dcc @mina @Scubbie @freepatriot @na @eriner @sun

> No, but it is now in queue.

Have a look at the first few pages. It is a missing puzzle piece for most modern philosophy and a bridge to account for the impenetrability of some of the older stuff.
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Merovingian Club

A club for red-pilled exiles.