🇳🇱
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.
@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.
@freemo @obi @trinsec @khird Ah, now I get it. I was imagining some kind of more formalised, perhaps named, ideologies. My mistake! Looks solid to me, and shouldn't limit genuine conversation, while eliminating actual hate speech by bad actors.