Also,I don't think even engaging in any form of bigotry(ranging from outright racist slurs to Stormfront style factoids(the latter which is often becoming alarmingly common on certain parts of reddit) should recieve the slightest amount of encouragement;it should be heavily discouraged. And 'free speech' is not an argument for bigotry.
(Although,I think this could be included in the first point of yours).
I'm generally of the unpopular-on-Reddit opinion that active moderation is more 'free' than just free-for-all speech. Communities which allow things like heavily racist or misogynist rhetoric automatically make that a place where marginalised groups do not feel welcome, and are therefore much less likely to post in. So it's free only in technicality, not in practice. Active moderation, which accounts for these trends by editing or removing content which violates a set of rules of conduct, provides a space where you are much more likely to get a diverse range of insight and experience simply because it isn't just the shoutiest, most persistent people who get the platform.
Yes, free speech protects your right to say offensive and otherwise hurtful things. However, that dosn't mean that it should be encouraged in this type of platform. Whether you are conservative or liberal, man or woman, we should all try our best to keep a friendly community. I am not saying to ban hurtful speech but it should not be encouraged.
I'm going to raise the point that challenging their stance leads nowhere, citing personal experience. When it comes to the Stormfront "facts" they cite, in many cases they're ignoring huge swaths of the sources they cite, because it has a relevant statistic to their point, but disregard the entire premise of the paper as "excuse making." The stretch they go to present a fake group bias on the issue as well as in general spreading disinformation leads to toxicity when left unchecked. The downvoting system at Reddit wasn't able to handle the surge of Stormfront users, resulting in a large swath of Reddit looking racist. In reality, it was just a very vocal minority spurred on by the new users who thought that was the norm. They got exactly what they wanted, a fake group bias and a few misinformed facts leading people on the road to sharing that same Stormfront dribble elsewhere. It's toxic, unintelligent, and overall a blight that needs to be taken care of instead of allowing it to fester.
I understand your point on the basis of principle, but in practice it leads things open for growing a toxic and misinformed community, that takes people giving up on replying as a sign of victory versus someone being tired of wasting their time arguing with a brick wall.
You honestly end up having to treat it like trolling to make it go away, by ignoring and downvoting it instead of challenging it. It's a lot harder for them to spread misinformation when the community can silently disregard them all together.
Also,I don't think even engaging in any form of bigotry(ranging from outright racist slurs to Stormfront style factoids(the latter which is often becoming alarmingly common on certain parts of reddit) should recieve the slightest amount of encouragement;it should be heavily discouraged. And 'free speech' is not an argument for bigotry.
(Although,I think this could be included in the first point of yours).
I'm generally of the unpopular-on-Reddit opinion that active moderation is more 'free' than just free-for-all speech. Communities which allow things like heavily racist or misogynist rhetoric automatically make that a place where marginalised groups do not feel welcome, and are therefore much less likely to post in. So it's free only in technicality, not in practice. Active moderation, which accounts for these trends by editing or removing content which violates a set of rules of conduct, provides a space where you are much more likely to get a diverse range of insight and experience simply because it isn't just the shoutiest, most persistent people who get the platform.
I think those should be challenged, not banned.
That sounds like a weird thing to say. Free speech is....free. It can be bigotry, it can be anything.
Yes, free speech protects your right to say offensive and otherwise hurtful things. However, that dosn't mean that it should be encouraged in this type of platform. Whether you are conservative or liberal, man or woman, we should all try our best to keep a friendly community. I am not saying to ban hurtful speech but it should not be encouraged.
I'm going to raise the point that challenging their stance leads nowhere, citing personal experience. When it comes to the Stormfront "facts" they cite, in many cases they're ignoring huge swaths of the sources they cite, because it has a relevant statistic to their point, but disregard the entire premise of the paper as "excuse making." The stretch they go to present a fake group bias on the issue as well as in general spreading disinformation leads to toxicity when left unchecked. The downvoting system at Reddit wasn't able to handle the surge of Stormfront users, resulting in a large swath of Reddit looking racist. In reality, it was just a very vocal minority spurred on by the new users who thought that was the norm. They got exactly what they wanted, a fake group bias and a few misinformed facts leading people on the road to sharing that same Stormfront dribble elsewhere. It's toxic, unintelligent, and overall a blight that needs to be taken care of instead of allowing it to fester.
I understand your point on the basis of principle, but in practice it leads things open for growing a toxic and misinformed community, that takes people giving up on replying as a sign of victory versus someone being tired of wasting their time arguing with a brick wall.
You honestly end up having to treat it like trolling to make it go away, by ignoring and downvoting it instead of challenging it. It's a lot harder for them to spread misinformation when the community can silently disregard them all together.
That's at least my feeling on it.