🇳🇱
I am considering adding the following phrasing to QOTO’s ToC.. Before I do I’d like some feedback from the community
While QOTO aims to provide a community where our users do not fear being punished for their personal opinions, that does not mean we allow people to disseminate ideologies that are abusive or violent towards others. Demonstrating support for or defending ideologies known to be violent or hateful is a bannable offense. This includes, but is not limited to: racial supremacy, anti-LGBTQ or anti-cis-gender/anti-straight, pro-genocide, child abuse or child pornography, etc. While we allow questions and conversation regarding these topics in general, doing so in bad faith will result in immediate expulsion.
@freemo @trinsec @khird While the suggestion itself looks reasonable in itself, i wonder if this is a good addition or just a reaction to bad behaviour from the outside.
With what happened lately, i suggest to take it slow. Pressure should not be the reason for policy changes, only reason.
Throwing around the word “bannable” could have an adverse effect. I did experience someone saying they were abused for talking about a topic. I do not know if that person acted in good or bad faith, but i think that there are people who have trouble to talk about loaded topics, and the change might affect them.
To not have any chilling effects, would it not be better to not list loaded topics, but concentrate on civility? People respecting each other seems to be our strength, i worry if we lose that if we let others mandate what we have to write.
@freemo @trinsec @khird The biggest problem i see is listing specific causes. If we cannot determine what is not ok, banning “bad” behaviour about the specific things is a really helpless act. We would protect some, while leaving others unprotected.
Either we can find a good frame in which discussions are ok, or we don’t. Listing specific causes will not help. It would only serve to appease those that act against an open discussion in good faith. Don’t let them do this, please.
New line: “that does not mean we allow people to disseminate ideologies that are abusive or violent towards others”
Already in the about text: “Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.”
I do not see the need to append anything.
The list is only a list of examples, it is not intended to be exhaustive.
@freemo @trinsec @khird And that is the problem.
If i get told that “abuse against sqares is forbidden” and i am a triangle, i feel left out. If i am a triangle that is wondering about a thing about squares, i am scared to ask.
Basically, i want to say all people should be protected from abuse. It does not matter what group they belong to. The moment we start to single out groups without a specific reason, we sacrifice that.
It would be ok to say “women should be protected from wage inequality” because there is wage inequality going on. Good thing, important, yes please.
It is not ok to say “women should be protected more”, because that would diss anyone who is not a woman. Why would we say that? People that are not women can suffer too and should be protected against whatever mean things happen to them.
So, in conclusion, a specific cause like “bad thing is happening to
Editing…
I was unclear on “cause”. Sorry. I used it to describe Groups of people and things that happen.
I am struggling to put this together in english, please let me know if it is not discernable that i meant.
@admitsWrongIfProven @freemo @trinsec @khird Agreed, I think anyone who needs “hateful ideologies” to be enumerated to understand what that means is the sort that this rule applies to.
@admitsWrongIfProven
Yea I am trying hard to find a wording that basically says “As long as your not being a racist/sexist asshat, your fine”… but there is no real perfect wording…
@trinsec @khird