π³π±
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.
Those are all fair additions.
However, I personally reject the idea of making these changes. It’s illogical. You are obviously doing it because of recent events. There is no logic in this because their was no wrongdoing to initiate these changes. You did nothing wrong. I personally feel like it would be breaking an ethical standard to make these kind of changes in response to recent events. It seems like an appeasement to a unethical mob. If you were to have made these changes organically, I would see no ethical dilemma.
That said, I am probably in the minority, or at least the vocal minority, and what I say or think doesn’t really mean shit. This is your baby. Do what you feel is right.
Again, I don’t really have much problem with the words, it’s the reasoning leading you to change them.
i.e Let’s say a prominent instance, who has been around forever is accused by a smaller one of being Nazis. The smaller site spreads rumors to people and it spreads like wildfire. The smaller site can provide no proof, just says to people “you don’t block them? They are Nazis”. The other sites block the bigger site, even without any proof, just word of mouth. The instance owner of the large instance changes his ToC to say “We don’t allow Nazis.” The other smaller instance will say “see, they even changed their ToC, the Nazis are trying to hide it!”. Nothing changes. The other instances don’t unblock, and the biger instance looks like they were guilty of something by changing their ToC, and gaining nothing.
Again, it’s just my view, and it doesn’t mean shit. I am no one.
@freemo @obi @trinsec @khird That sums it up for me: as long as you believe the ToC you’re changing to, then no problem. Regardless of the baying mob! The bright line is when you change it to something you don’t believe.
To your proposed wording change, what “ideologies” do you have in mind? I do like the distinction between an individual’s opinion (which is okay), and spruiking for a hate group (actionable).
I specifically chose qoto because it wouldn’t penalise an individual’s personal beliefs if expressed if they happen to be unpopular. Not that I personally have a lot of those, but that academic freedom should be the right of any individual in a free society.
As I see it our moderation practices havent changed with any of this. It is just a clearer way to express them for some.
I tweaked it to this:
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 recognize questions and conversation regarding these topics are essential a STEM community, in general, doing so in bad faith will result in immediate expulsion.
@freemo @Alaskanviking @trinsec @khird I would split the first sentence into two, avoiding to weaken both parts.
How about:
βQOTO aims to provide a community where our users do not fear being punished for their personal opinions. We do not allow people to disseminate ideologies that are abusive or violent towards others.β
@freemo @Alaskanviking @trinsec @khird
(…) pro-genocide, child abuse or child pornography, etc.
More wording than anything else:
I haven’t seen people say that “child abuse” is an example of ideology (rather just a description of an act). Do you want to say pro-child abuse and pro-CP there?
@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.
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…
@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.
QOTO aims to provide a positive community environment where our users do not fear punishment or reprisal for beliefs or opinions they hold, in line with core principles of freedom of expression.
However, this tolerance does not extend to explicitly criminal, violent or abusive content; Admins will take active steps to ban any domain or account that engages in posting materials of these kinds, to secure an inclusive and social space for QOTO and greater-fediverse users.
Unacceptable expression includes, but is not limited to:
- Hate Speech
- Racial Supremacy
- Gender or Sex-Based Discrimination
- Genocide Support
- Child Abuse
It should be made clear that discussion of these topics is permitted, but they should be discussed with care.
Yours is fine too, I just thought it was an interesting writing exercise.
While I’m the stubborn type who would tend to agree with @obi and @admitsWrongIfProven because I generally don’t do whatever anyone is pressuring me to do, in this situation(of the little I know) I would ask yourself one question. Does adding this make my qoto-life better or easier? If the answer is yes then I think that’s what matters at this point.
@BE Solid point. I hope it does @freemo @trinsec @khird @admitsWrongIfProven
@BE @freemo @trinsec @khird @obi Reasonable point. I would argue that it does make it harder.
It might “solve” the problem that some want to block us, but if they come back to not blocking us and the precedent is we caved… i foresee more demands.
Make a stand for a reasonable discussion or split. And by split i mean no contact.
In romantic relationships people sometimes don’t fit together. I think something similar applies here.
They are surely not comic book villains, they will have some motivation for what they do. But that does not mean they should be able to boss us around.
@freemo
While free speech is usually taken as “say what you want”, people often use it as an excuse to hurt other basic human rights(such as the right of honor(?, not sire about the english names))… So while i will agree for such addition, it still pains me how “ uneducated” people can be(me included sometimes)
@RustyStriker Couldnt agree with you more
@freemo
Maybe also add a “what is free speech” sort of section? I really hate people shitting on others and claim “free speech”
@RustyStriker Well we changed “Free Speech” to “academic Freedom” so im not sure thats needed anymore.
@freemo
Yet another term lost to facism
@freemo @trinsec @khird @_foxaru I liked the “stem community” phrasing as an important pointer to why speech would be allowed, but not so much the “bad faith”. Intentions matter but impact does also. Not sure that a psychopath ever acts in “bad faith”. (But discount my opinions due to only being here about a week.)
I feel like if anyone were actually following our moderation efforts until now that has been proven countless times.. but it always falls on deaf ears.
Lets hope their actually looking for evidence… I would hope our timeline alone would have disproven that one.
@freemo @trinsec @khird I like this wording, People should be free to respectfully ask each other βwhy do you believe that?β Likewise, when asked why we believe something, we should be encouraged to respectfully offer grounds. Free speech does not require shared beliefs. No conversation would be needed if we all thought alike! It rather requires respectful questioning, expression, and listening. We can embrace high standards both for openness and decorum. Indeed, these ideals are linked.
@freemo @trinsec @khird Looks solid to me. Thank you. @edutooters