irotsoma

I’m filling in the blanks with the logical conclusion based on the direction of social media in general since there are blanks and this policy discourages moderators from moderating when there are blanks. And moderators trying to not get banned will often do the same.

Lack of specific directions for a scenario with conflicting, subjective options, a limited leadership empowered to make decisions so the lower levels can’t all have direct access, and the threat of serious consequences for doing it wrong is how fascism thrives through inaction against it. Same goes for regulatory systems and thus is likely to happen in a moderation system. This is just sociology.

Anyway, I’ll be moving my main profiles and communities for now and check in at a later date to see how the policy develops. Hope you’ll consider the needs of the communities over the needs of the extremists.

But what about black people should be slaves or women should be household objects or Autism needs to be “cured”, or all of the other hate speech that some people think is not hate speech? I hope that you’ll clarify the rules because the post here left it open for interpretation and specifically made it policy that anything “subjective” to any person’s point of view shouldn’t be moderated. Free speech isnt free if it’s not regulated. If people are free to say I’m not human because I’m LGBTQ+, autistic, or any other trait that is considered “bad” by some group of people, then I’m not free to exist, much less speak.

If this isn’t clear, I’m not sure how else to make it clear. I’ll be moving along and dragging my groups with me, but for those remaining, I hope you’ll reconsider trying to ban objective moderation and create very specific categories of what can be moderated. But that’s a huge undertaking.

It’s generally better to come from the other side. Give a set of things that should NOT be moderated on top of the things that MUST be moderated (like the concept of “protected classes” in many anti-discrimination laws) and as exceptions come up, add them to the NOT moderated list.

Your way is stating everything is in the NOT moderated as it’s all subjective to someone and thus the hate speech policy is void unless all parties including the ones saying it agree that it’s hate speech (which they never will). This is backwards and will create a ton of hate speech to get through and thus a ton of true free-speech to be lost from the minorities they attack. This is how it has worked throughout history. It’s not a new concept, so I’m unsure how else to say it to convince you.

But if this policy goes into effect. You are saying it’s all subjective and thus the hate speech policy only applies if you or a server level admin say it’s hate speech. You’re asking moderators not to moderate if there’s any question about whether it is OK or not. And a large number of people now believe it’s OK which is why X and Meta have these policies, so to me and likely to many moderators here, you’re saying exactly as Meta just said, don’t moderate these things as hate speech. Remember, Meta also still has an anti-hate speech policy, it’s just that these subjects are no longer considered hate speech by enough of their users that they don’t allow moderation of it. You’re asking for the exact same thing, you just haven’t called out the specifics, you’re leaving it “subjective”. And with moderation, abstaining from action is the exact same as acceptance.

If you’re going to say speech saying a person is mentally ill because they are LGBTQ+ or that a woman are “household property” needs to be evaluated subjectively and these changes are saying that moderators should not make subjective determinations and should err on the side of assuming they are OK, then you are saying that these things are not hate speech and thus not covered by the hate speech policy. And with moderation of X and Meta now saying these things are not hate speech, it seems even more likely that moderators will need to leave these things in place due to this policy. And in that case I’ll be leaving as I don’t wish to be the target of anti-LGBTQ+, anti-autism, or any other hate speech that is now allowed on X and Meta and will likely have to be allowed here as some group considers them not hate speech.

The problem other than the fact that the timing is suspect as other social media is moving as quickly as possible to allow hate speech under the guise of free speech, is that the language uses seems to imply that moderators must cater to moderating only things that are hateful or attacks by all users. Problem is that many on the far right don’t consider the things I mentioned or most other hate speech to be disrespectful. They don’t consider those people to be worthy of respect or human at all. They are “followers of the devil” or whatever excuse they have told themselves to justify their hate.

So saying that hate speech is not respectful only works if all parties consider it hate speech. But all of these things are now excluded from what Meta considers hate speech (they do still ban hate speech in general, just are more specific now about what that is). For example, they just consider LGBTQ+ people being mentally ill to be a fact or at least setting up for debate. They even provide examples of what they consider to be “opinion” and thus “free speech” and not “hate speech” like calling trans and non-binary people “it” or calling women “household objects” to dehumanize them is considered not hate speech by them.

So, either you need to specifically call out all the things you consider hate speech that far right people do not, or you need to allow moderators to do their job as members of society that understand what is hate and what is not. It’s never black and white.

I mean, the real reasons have nothing to do with productivity since productivity actually increased with remote and hybrid work. The real reason is they aren’t doing as well as expected, partly due to some recent problems, and have a many investments in commercial real estate and they need a boom to make some quick profit for shareholders.

Oh, and to appease Elan…

I didn’t say treatment wasn’t good. I said it wasnt something to cure. Just like black people might seek counseling for how to deal with the inequalities, autistic people need treatment to deal with the issues that society causes for them. I’m saying anything that’s saying Autism is something to be “cured” is hate speech. You’re saying that Autistic people like me should exist as we are, but change to fit society, just like saying a black person should change their skin color to fit in better. Autism is not a disease regardless of what companiea like Autism Speaks try to push. It is simply a different way of thinking.

So yes, is you’re one of the people specifically saying that Autism shouldn’t exist and needs to be cured that is pure hate speech. It you’re saying it requires treatment, then it depends on the specifics and thus my use of the word “most”. So it saying it needs a cure should be moderated as hate speech. But if no hate speech is being moderated to allow thing that aren’t hate speech that doesn’t make sense. If you understand what is and what isnt hate speech, then it’s easy to moderate bad from less obviously good or bad. It’s not a thin line.

Because most are saying that my existence is a disease to be cured and not simply a different way of existing. It’s like telling a black person that drug should be developed to bleach their skin so they can live more like the general public without a lifetime of prejudices. Autism only requires therapy to force us to act differently than our brains tell us to act. Not because oír normal way of acting is somehow self-destructive, but because it breaks social norms and makes others uncomfortable. The “cure” is fir other people to accept us as we are, just like the “cure” for being black is to accept them not change them.

I couldn’t care less about flat earthers. It’s the lack of moderation of hate speech that prompted me to leave Meta products. When the speech is specifically designed to harm others it’s a huge difference from just harming themselves and their willing peers. Allowing spreading that LGBTQ+ people are mentally ill or that Autistic people need to be fixed rather than accepted, or that all immigrants are bad people, those things are not just bad science (though that’s part of it). They are designed to have those people ostracized or murdered. That is not “respectful disagreement”. That is pure hate-speech, even if the person saying it truly believes it. It is detrimental to the community and if that is allowed here like on Meta now, I’ll happily leave as a proud LGBTQ+ and neurodivergent person among other things that current “political discourse” (i.e. acceptable hate) is being allowed to spread.

Trump Jr. already started after he got run out after a day though he said je was staying for the week originally. Now He’s saying how much they love Trump there.

Denmark is a NATO country along with France. They’d be forced to intercede along with most of the rest of Eastern Europe.

Well he is planning to leave NATO, so it will be the US against NATO. Sure the US has more weapons now, but unless billionaires start paying taxes instead of taking them, there’s no way the US could maintain a sustained war against all of NATO. So the US would need to ally with Russia and even that might not be enough, so probably China too. That or China will take advantage of the chaos and turn on Trump since he and Xi aren’t as friendly as Putin. It would be an interesting, if disastrous time to be alive.

I mean, the way you dress isn’t really connected to sexuality. It may be somewhat connected to gender presentation (not gender overall, but the way society interprets gender through presentation), but gender and sexual preference are not directly connected either. I dress fairly feminine at times, including exposed bras, fishnets, and dyed hair, but I’m not really interested in men.

I don’t get it. Why not just remove divorce from the courts?

No it’s the cost. Reprocessing wouldn’t create weapons grade materials in most cases. Not anymore than the enrichment for the existing reactors anyway. Problem is that it requires expensive equipment, lots of security, and doesn’t produce nearly as much energy as the existing reactors, at least not in the short term, and companies (especially publicly traded ones) only really have incentive to care about short term profit.

Then you have the problem of limited supply in a given area, and if you need to get it from all over the world, the transportation is definitely a security issue and major expense. And once you reprocess all of the existing waste, it takes time for more to be produced. Then you aren’t making profit.

It’s just not a profitable undertaking, so it will never happen. The general conceptual technology has existed at least as long as nuclear reactors. But hasn’t been developed at all. That’s the reality and will remain the reality. Especially considering that other, truly renewable energy sources are cheaper to build, and don’t require as much security and maintenance to produce as much energy.

The biggest thing that would solve a lot of problems in renewables would be investing in battery and other efficient energy storage. But the fossil companies own most of that tech now, have traditionally shelved it after buying it, and with the current political atmosphere, are being incentivized to more aggressively dig for more fossil fuels rather than plan for the future. Especially in the US with the next administration planning to increase oil and coal production and eliminate the environmental restrictions that make it more expensive to dig up, process, and use what little remains.

The waste. There are currently no operational longterm storage facilities much less permanent ones. It’s too expensive, so companies just go bankrupt or governments like the US just stop funding them and the waste sits in pools waiting for a natural disaster, terrorist, or war to damage them and poison the soil and water tables for generations. The Pacific Ocean already got a taste with Fukushima, but it’s enormous and could absorb it…mostly, but what if a tornado hit a facility in the landlocked Midwest US?

But, security… Aren’t tens of thousands of children’s lives a small price to pay to stop the violence?

/s

Don’t worry, Americans’ social services were diverted to design and build them. The Philippine social services are just going to the bank accounts of the weapons manufacturers, not the manufacture of those weapons. See, it’s less immoral, right? /s

Apparently not if it’s territory you illegally occupy or a neighboring country that one time sent terrorists to your country. Then the whole country is terrorists and everything is a military target. Helps if some of your citizens steal the “abandoned” land and build on it after you destroy everything.

I mean, yeah, otherwise they’d want regulations that prevent it from being manipulated by individual rich people, but they have always been against anti-monopoly regulation and other protective regulations.

“Free market” doesn’t mean free from regulation, it means free from interference in the supply and demand of the product. But there’s still a need to prevent other forces from interfering with supply, including from those participating in the market. If a single company prevents any competition from entering the market, that is what’s not “free market”.