🇳🇱
Please don'tt forget everyone in the UFoI or planning to be.. You have to post on your Terms of Service (rules) somewhere that you are in the UFoI and that the server adheres to its rules.
You are welcome to say this or put it wherever you want as long as it is clear to your users.
Basically make sure you include two things:
1) A reference to the fact that the instance is in the UFoI, with a link to the website: https://UFoI.org
2) A reference to the fact that it follows the Code of Ethics, preferably with a link to that: https://ufoi.org/docs/code-of-ethics
I just added this myself to QOTO, attached is a screenshot of the way I did it.
If anyone wants the html code to copy and paste into their ToS that I used it is here:
Finally if any of you new people in the thread want to use the profiles with verified profile links (the little green check mark next to links in bios) just reach out to me and I can show you how to set it up.
(PS not a hell thread, just taging people this is relevant to)
#UFI #UFoI @ufoi @kravietz @Ryle @gregory @jonnypencils@social.retrodon.net @steve @dump_stack @joaopinheiro @SolSoCoG @evan @greg @selea @jens @t1c @thatonecalculator
Its important to let everyone know I reworded the first "hate speech" clause of the code of ethics.. since this is critical please let me know if anyone objects to the new wording, I can always reverse it and put it up to a vote but I expect most people will be ok with it.
@kravietz @Ryle @gregory @jonnypencils@social.retrodon.net @steve @dump_stack @joaopinheiro @SolSoCoG @evan @greg @selea @jens @t1c @thatonecalculator
I agree with you here.. let me bring back the part from the original that says protected groups, but leave the rest of the wording.. would that be better?
@kravietz @ufoi @greg @t1c @SolSoCoG @dump_stack @gregory @joaopinheiro @evan @selea @jonnypencils@social.retrodon.net @steve @thatonecalculator @jens
“protected characteristics”, it’s a term used in the UN, EU, post-brexit UK common law too.
How about this:
**No hate speech**, defined 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, religion, nationality, sex or sexuality.
the change was brought up byu an admin.
@kravietz @ufoi @greg @t1c @SolSoCoG @dump_stack @gregory @joaopinheiro @evan @selea @jonnypencils@social.retrodon.net @steve @thatonecalculator @jens
Yeah, I like this change. Very succinct and clear. 👍
Ok going to add it but its open to revision should anyone else chime in.
@kravietz @ufoi @greg @t1c @SolSoCoG @dump_stack @gregory @joaopinheiro @evan @selea @jonnypencils@social.retrodon.net @steve @thatonecalculator @jens
@freemo @Ryle @kravietz @ufoi @greg @t1c @SolSoCoG @dump_stack @gregory @joaopinheiro @evan @selea @jonnypencils @steve @thatonecalculator
The only thing I might add is that the first rule is too long to be accepted as a rule in Mastodon. 😂
Perhaps we can work on see if there are ways to communicate more effectively? Or with brevity?
Is this short enough?
No hate speech, defined as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a protected characteristic
We should make an easy short list for Mastodon admins. I’m not using Mastodon, so I don’t know the limits you need to work in.
Although, I think “no hate speech” is also sufficient in the small text. As I understand Mastodon supports a longer thing where this sort of thing can be explained in detail?
@Ryle @kravietz @ufoi @greg @t1c @SolSoCoG @dump_stack @gregory @joaopinheiro @evan @freemo @selea @jonnypencils@social.retrodon.net @steve @thatonecalculator @jens I think that the statement at least needs to explicitly refer to a list of protected groups so that those who have concerns about their participation on Mastodon who are members of such groups know that they are protected by this. Such a list might grow over time, and I think that is fine.
Sorry, I wasn’t very clear. I was proposing that Jens use a shorter variant in his rules, not that it be amended in the UFoI document.
Thanks for the suggestion.
I’m still very new to the Fediverse and haven’t really understood how many different server softwares that can communicate and how they differentiate.
But I do believe that rules should be short, sweet and easy for everybody to understand.
We also know that being admins of our servers grants us the right to interpret them as we please anyway.
So, I apologise for being Mastodon-centric.
I think you raised an excellent point honestly, there’s a proposal on this link here which discusses a potential solution I think makes most people happy. @freemo though raised his owns concerns on it too.
@freemo @Ryle @kravietz @ufoi @greg @t1c @SolSoCoG @dump_stack @gregory @joaopinheiro @evan @selea @jonnypencils@social.retrodon.net @steve @thatonecalculator @jens
Would you consider moving "nationality" to its rightful place in the alphabetical list of characteristics? :)
lol sure
@Ryle @kravietz @ufoi @greg @t1c @SolSoCoG @dump_stack @gregory @joaopinheiro @evan @selea @jonnypencils@social.retrodon.net @steve @thatonecalculator @jens
@freemo @ufoi @kravietz @Ryle @gregory @jonnypencils @steve @dump_stack @joaopinheiro @SolSoCoG @evan @greg @selea @jens @t1c @thatonecalculator
NGL, not a fan of the current hate speech rule, as it'd probably will be used to cover support for traditional beliefs in addition to hateful speech due to its "discriminatory language" clause.
But I understand that my position on #LGBT issues in particular is traditional and somewhat anti Current Thing so I get it if this is your intent, or something you want to keep here. This may not be for me but many other people may enjoy/want this.
@freemo @ufoi @kravietz @Ryle @gregory @jonnypencils @steve @dump_stack @joaopinheiro @SolSoCoG @evan @greg @selea @jens @t1c @thatonecalculator Also another suggestion, I'd add calls to self harm as a call to violence. It definitely helped me weed out hateful folks when I was running #CounterFedi.
I'm not aware of any countries that have laws against hate speech that don't protect traditional beliefs. Some of these really come down to what is overly legal content across most western countries.
@Ryle @kravietz @ufoi @greg @t1c @SolSoCoG @dump_stack @gregory @joaopinheiro @evan @freemo @selea @jonnypencils @steve @thatonecalculator @jens
> I'm not aware of any countries that have laws against hate speech that don't protect traditional beliefs.
#Canada is a pretty obvious one.
It's tough, when I say "trans women shouldn't be in women's restrooms" I'm not being hateful, but many may view that statement as such, so that doubtless colors my perception of hate speech in general. I'm quite sure that that position though would be covered under "discriminatory language".
Most European countries are bound to ECHR when it comes to the minimum of hate speech rules: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-act/protected-characteristics
I just noticed the one thing we do not have is ‘marriage and civil partnership’.
@Ryle @kravietz @ufoi @greg @t1c @SolSoCoG @dump_stack @gregory @joaopinheiro @evan @freemo @selea @jonnypencils @steve @thatonecalculator @jens True...but I'm not sure how this pertains to this exactly; this isn't a European system AFAIK
The point is to make a set of basic minimum rules that are acceptable to federate. I take the view that this mostly covers Western countries, which includes removing any sort of high issue legality problems for instances across a large chunk of western countries where sensible.
It’s a trap - in the US Holocaust denial is constitutionally protected free speech, while in many EU countries it’s literally a crime. What now? There’s simply no common set of values that can be averaged between even “Western” countries.
If there’s any way to make a set of rules workable in a global network, it has to be a very short list of high-level banned forms of expression (“hate speech”, period).
Attempts to make it more specific without a team of lawyers are simply doomed to fail.
Personally I would just prefer a very short list, like the current one, without any detailed enumerations of what is protected, and instead focus on the form of expression. The part about respectful debating thing is IMHO perfectly sufficient.
Yes, you can still respectfully suggest sending someone to a gas chamber, but such haters are easily dealt with using reply/mute/ban and the most socially devastating are the aggressive/harassing types.
@ufoi @greg @t1c @SolSoCoG @dump_stack @gregory @joaopinheiro @evan @freemo @realcaseyrollins @selea @steve @thatonecalculator @jens
@kravietz @Ryle @ufoi @greg @t1c @SolSoCoG @dump_stack @gregory @joaopinheiro @evan @freemo @selea @steve @thatonecalculator @jens You could add a clause that exceptions must be made for local laws that differ from #UFOI rules, and the instance rules page must describe how their rules differ due to legal restraints
𝚜𝚎𝚕𝚎𝚊 
It’s a trap - in the US Holocaust denial is constitutionally protected free speech, while in many EU countries it’s literally a crime. What now?
It’s not a trap, it prevents the US government from censoring that content. It does not prevent a privately owned instance from doing so.
Please note this EHRC list of protected characteristics is about discrimination, for example at workplace, and doesn’t make much sense in the context of hate speech.
@ufoi @greg @t1c @SolSoCoG @dump_stack @gregory @joaopinheiro @evan @freemo @realcaseyrollins @selea @jonnypencils @steve @thatonecalculator @jens
That’ll teach me for pulling off the first link in Google there. 😆
@gregory @freemo @ufoi @kravietz @Ryle @jonnypencils @steve @dump_stack @joaopinheiro @SolSoCoG @evan @greg @selea @jens @t1c @thatonecalculator @realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world From what I've found the overlap of people who tell other people to kill themselves and the people who genuinely hate trans people and harassment is pretty big. When I ran #CounterFedi I also banned calls to suicide and it did a pretty good job at keeping those folks away, as well as keeping other unpleasant folks off the platform too.
https://wordsmith.social/counterculture/why-we-started-a-social-media-site
I’d like to understand the concerned parties that lead behind this decision? Is it users on instances or instance admins?
I think “other identity factor” is too open to interpretation. It technically allows those that would utilize hate speech rules in reverse. If that’s chopped off, it’s sufficient as a standard I think.