@doot @freemo Looks like it didn't last. I just checked qoto.org/about/more#rules and the current rule says "hate-based racism, sexism, and other hateful speech [will get you banned] but generally unpopular opinions voiced respectfully will be fine".

I want to ask what "unpopular opinions" are important enough to warrant an explicit whitelisting here but also vile enough that someone might reasonably have assumed "no hate speech" bans them, but I already know the answer will be "tHe tRaNs dEbAtE"

@doot Is that fair? I have no way of knowing! But my experience is: almost certainly.

And if I were running a Mastodon instance, I probably would not read every post on qoto to find out, or engage in a "public, evidence-based due process" because honestly, who has that kind of time?

No, I'm going to assume it's a server full of YouTube Atheists debating whether or not my friends should have human rights and block the whole thing, and it's unreasonable for @freemo to expect anything else.


I have reworded our ToS maybe 30 times to keep appeasing objections like this and people just find new ways to twist it into something bad.. ill change it again I dont mind, but its getting absurd.. You ever think maybe you came in with a preconseption and went looking for something that would confirm it rather than the other way around?

Look what is meant is simple... derogatory speech isnt allowed, as long as its not derogatory speech then unpopular opinions are allowed. I will update QOTO so it copies the UFoI wording so there is no confusion, but we make this clear in several other places in our ToS..

As for the whole "what about this? discussion", Its an open-floor discussion, lots of people might have some bad ideas, thats why its a discussion.. but no exceptions have even been put up to vote, so lets try to worry about it if it happens...

I will make this clear, if hate speech or derogatory speech is allowed then QOTO would leave the UFoI. The irony, of course, is that leaving the UFoI would probably make people happy and they will just ignore the why and still call us nazis.

Still waiting for a single person to find even a single objectionable thing on the QOTO timeline, even remotely so.. but nah, that would just burst all the fun everyone is having calling people nazis I guess who are otherwise good people.



I realize I didnt fully answer your question in my last response...

So I assume by "the trans debate" you mean people debating if trans people are "valid"? So your suggesting that isnt derogatory speech but is a simple difference of opinion not falling under derogatory speech? I dunno, that is shocking, personally I think it is quite clear that would fall under the first clause as hate-speech/derogatory-speech... not that would not get an exception..

So what is not derogatory speech but is unpopular? How about debate over if QOTO is a good actor or not? The last week we got about I dunno 80 new users who were banned from their home instances simply for saying somerthing like "I dont see any prejudice coming from QOTO".. bam, their banned.. for... an... unpopular opinion.

Now i want to be clear there is a reason we have that clause in QOTO and not int he UFoI, theUFoI governs other instances. Therefore if some instance wants to make a rule making some sort of unpopular non-derogatory speech against the rules, they can. So that clause simply makes no sense... At qoto however as long as you are respectful, kind, and not derogatory towards marginalized people simply saying 'Windows phones are great" (an unpopular opinion) wont get you banned.


@freemo @doot Help me understand here. Do you think a user would look at the rule β€œno hate speech” and assume that it meant they couldn’t say Windows Phones are good? If not, why would you say β€œno hate speech but unpopular opinions are ok” and not β€œno bots but black people are ok” or β€œno advertising but you are allowed to use punctuation”? Putting the two things in one sentence implies a connection and that's concerning.

@freemo @doot To be, it implies that you're saying "no hate speech, but don't worry, we have a really tight definition of hate speech so feel free to push the envelope", which yeah, feels worth defederating from. I can't think of another reasonable way to read that sentence and your insistence on treating the two halves of it as completely separate entities just makes you look extremely silly.


I've taken your concerns into consideration and changed our ToS to be more clear.. do you think this satisfies your concerns (see our ToS, its live)

Under what will get you banned:

No hate speech, We define hate speech as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a protected characteristic, in other words, based on their age, disability, ethnicity, gender, pregnancy, nationality, sex or sexuality.

Under What won't get you banned:

Unpopular opinions voiced respectfully will be fine, so long as it doesnt violate our other rules.


@freemo The head of BBC News last month told LGBT staff who complained about the department's transphobic output: "get used to hearing views you don’t like". thetimes.co.uk/article/fran-un

Lsat year Sussex Uni cried "academic freedom" when students demanded they fire a transphobic professor.

What do you expect people to assume when they see an "academic freedom" instance that has an explicit rule that "unpopular opinions" are allowed and which openly federates with fascists?


Well lets look to QOTO's openly LGBTQ community and see what their opinion is then, they would be the one to ask no?



@freemo I'm not trying to tell you what your own instance is like. You know better than me. I'm trying to explain to you how it *looks* to everyone else, and it feels like you just don't understand what I'm saying.

Which honestly, is a red flag. Like you could say "yes, I see that, but I think there's a place for less strictly moderated instances too and if that means some people defederate, so be it", but instead you started acting like Octodon will ban you for openly liking Windows Phone 7.

@freemo Like, you must see how "the allegations against us are false AND ALSO when we say 'academic freedom' we don't mean bigotry in fancy words AND ALSO when we say 'hate speech is bad but unpopular opinions are ok' we don't mean 'you can advocate for genocide as long as you're kinda vague about it and don't use slurs' AND ALSO we only federate with fascists to keep an eye on them" is never going to be an easy sell, right? You're asking for a lot of benefit from much less doubt than you think.

@andrewt I do very much understand how that can be twisted against us despite 5 years of public record of looking out for, defending, and investing in the LGBTQ community. So do I see how it can be twisted to be unpopular... yes I do.... Can you see how I care more about saving LGBTQ lives than I do about being popular and expect that people who are truely good people should be able to see that if they take more than a cursory glance?


@andrewt I do want to say i am sorry ive interacted iwth you so defensively... I should not. I appreciate and respect your abiity to engage respectfully

Β· Β· 0 Β· 0 Β· 1
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.