🇳🇱
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:
“QOTO 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.”
@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?
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
@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 “why do you believe that?” 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