*Sigh*
Criticize them for what they have actually done and said. Don't put words in their mouth, if they haven't actually said those words. Keep to the facts. Don't speculate. Don't assume implication. Don't assign blame for something that has not actually been done. Facts, no assumptions.
Warp, they explicitly removed the lines in their policy that banned hate speech, there is no assuming going on here, it's just facts.
And have you even read Moth's latest post in this thread by any chance? http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=506109#506109
[14:15] <feos> WinDOES what DOSn't
12:33:44 PM <Mothrayas> "I got an oof with my game!"
Mothrayas Today at 12:22: <Colin> thank you for supporting noble causes such as my feet
MemoryTAS Today at 11:55 AM: you wouldn't know beauty if it slapped you in the face with a giant fish
[Today at 4:51 PM] Mothrayas: although if you like your own tweets that's the online equivalent of sniffing your own farts and probably tells a lot about you as a person
MemoryTAS Today at 7:01 PM: But I exert big staff energy honestly lol
Samsara Today at 1:20 PM: wouldn't ACE in a real life TAS just stand for Actually Cease Existing
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
Warp wrote:
Mothrayas wrote:
a network's implicit endorsement of hate speech.
*Sigh*
Criticize them for what they have actually done and said. Don't put words in their mouth, if they haven't actually said those words. Keep to the facts. Don't speculate. Don't assume implication. Don't assign blame for something that has not actually been done. Facts, no assumptions.
The line you neatly quoted out of context referred to associating with the platform. Like it or not, public association and reputation aren't based on exact sciences, and organizations can do a lot of work to tank their reputation even if it isn't based on exact facts. This also extends to reputation extending to other instances by association, so how freenode is perceived by external parties is also relevant to us.
But if you want facts, I've posted plenty of them in this thread, backed with sources and logs, including documented actual hate speech by newly-assigned freenode staff. Anything else you wanted to say about facts or assumptions?
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
But if you want facts, I've posted plenty of them in this thread, backed with sources and logs, including documented actual hate speech by newly-assigned freenode staff. Anything else you want to negate as "assumptions"?
To be absolutely honest, I don't give a flying f*** about what the staff may or may not have said in the past in other contexts. I only care about what the official stated policy of the site is. The current cancel culture can go to hell for all I care and I don't give a f*** about it. What matters is what the staff is saying in the context of the site now, not what they may have done or said elsewhere in the past. I don't assume intent. I only care about facts. I don't care what the employees of some company may have done in their free time. I only care what the company policy is, and what the employees say and do on behalf of the company.
There is no "implicit endorsement of hate speech". They either endorse it or they don't. Show me where they endorse it and I'll agree with you. Removing some BS social justice language from some random policy page is not endorsement of anything.
Just keep to the facts, and keep your assumptions out of it. You had tons of facts in your original post. Those were fine. The assumption was completely superfluous and unnecessary.
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6446
Location: The land down under.
lol it's not even "cancel culture".
Reread the situation understand the situation an don't have your head up rasengan's ass cause that's what he is claiming it to be.
There is so much backing against FreeNode right now that you decided to ignore it.
Classic Warp, never reading into a situation that they don't care about.
Unless Warp you actually like hate speech?
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
There is no "implicit endorsement of hate speech". They either endorse it or they don't. Show me where they endorse it and I'll agree with you. Removing some BS social justice language from some random policy page is not endorsement of anything.
[14:15] <feos> WinDOES what DOSn't
12:33:44 PM <Mothrayas> "I got an oof with my game!"
Mothrayas Today at 12:22: <Colin> thank you for supporting noble causes such as my feet
MemoryTAS Today at 11:55 AM: you wouldn't know beauty if it slapped you in the face with a giant fish
[Today at 4:51 PM] Mothrayas: although if you like your own tweets that's the online equivalent of sniffing your own farts and probably tells a lot about you as a person
MemoryTAS Today at 7:01 PM: But I exert big staff energy honestly lol
Samsara Today at 1:20 PM: wouldn't ACE in a real life TAS just stand for Actually Cease Existing
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
Warp wrote:
I don't give a flying f*** about what the staff may or may not have said in the past in other contexts.
We have a site and community to represent and uphold. You do not. What you give a flying f*** about is not on the same level as what we have to give a flying f*** about.
Warp wrote:
Removing some BS social justice language from some random policy page is not endorsement of anything.
The removed text is a disallowance "various forms of antisocial behaviour, including (but not limited to) political, racial, ethnic, religious or gender-related invective."
If you think it's "BS social justice language" to disallow racial/ethnic/religious/gender-based hate speech, then I suggest you find another place to accommodate for that, as you won't find it here.
Warp wrote:
Show me where they endorse it and I'll agree with you.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11492
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Warp wrote:
There is no "implicit endorsement of hate speech". They either endorse it or they don't. Show me where they endorse it and I'll agree with you. Removing some BS social justice language from some random policy page is not endorsement of anything.
TASVideos appears to have similar rules. Are they also "some BS social justice language"?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
With "cancel culture" I'm referring to this notion that people should not be employed, or taken as members of some organization or group, if they have expressed some disagreeable opinions in the past or done something objectionable. The notion that if you employ such a person you are somehow endorsing what that person has done, said or believes. This whole thing about finding out what some staff members have said somewhere and holding it against the organization.
Allowing some of your employees to hold Communist beliefs is not an endorsement of Communism. Allowing some of them to hold conservative beliefs is not an endorsement of conservatism. Allowing some of them to hold far-right beliefs is not an endorsement of far-right ideology. As long as they keep their opinions to themselves and don't act according to those beliefs on behalf of the organization, that should be fine. People are free to think and say whatever they want, even if you find those things absolutely despicable. Employing those people is not an implicit endorsement. It only crosses the line when the person expresses those beliefs while representing the organization.
Reread the situation understand the situation an don't have your head up rasengan's ass cause that's what he is claiming it to be.
I have made zero claims about him, or freenode, or anything. I have not even claimed that his official public policy is not one of far-right extremism or whatever. The only thing I have said is that accusations should be based on direct facts, not on assumptions, speculation, putting-words-in-mouths, and implied intent.
Unless Warp you actually like hate speech?
No, but I'm a constitutionalist and free speech absolutist. I fully subscribe to the principle that Evelyn Beatrice Hall attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
Warp wrote:
No, but I'm a constitutionalist and free speech absolutist. I fully subscribe to the principle that Evelyn Beatrice Hall attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Also, this isn't about disagreements in political opinions or whatever. This is about hate speech. Discriminating people on race, ethnic, LGBT status, or the like, is not something that users should have to deal with, and site community leaders should not have to support or allow people posting it.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
No, but I'm a constitutionalist and free speech absolutist. I
Absolute freedom of speech does not exist anywhere in the world and no one would even want that, including you. Or else, things like death threats would have to be legal.
Current project: Gex 3 any%
Paused: Gex 64 any%
There are no N64 emulators. Just SM64 emulators with hacky support for all the other games.
Joined: 3/25/2006
Posts: 850
Location: stuck in Pandora's box HELLPP!!!
I want to tack on to the discussion that an IRC is a place of socialising, not some random corporation of employees, meaning that backwards mentalities like transphobia are actually a big deal.
I also want to point out that hate speech is a criminal offence in the UK, we're not just dealing with differences of opinion here, they should absolutely be explicitly enforcing this rule.
"Free speech only binds the government" is just an excuse.
There are two aspects to free speech: The legal meaning of "right to free speech", and the principle of free speech. If you say "free speech only binds the government" you are not actually supporting free speech. You are not subscribing to Voltaire's sentiment of "but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
If you think that when someone says something you don't like he should be punished in some manner, you do not support free speech. You support restricted speech.
When someone says "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" that's absolutely incorrect: That's exactly what it means. That's because if there are negative consequences to you because of your expression of opinion, that's not free speech. That's restricted speech. It's punishable speech. It doesn't make any difference whether the punishment comes from the government or from the people around you, the end result is the same: Your speech has been restricted. Your expression of opinion has been restricted. The people who are punishing you are not defending your right to free speech, and are instead actively trying to restrict your free speech, to silence you.
This is not about criticism. Criticism in itself is part of the fundamental right to free speech. Trying to silence criticism is trying to restrict people's fundamental right to free speech. However, there's a huge categorical difference between criticism and punishment (eg. in the form of shunning, silencing, discrimination or even violence). Criticism is not a "consequence". It's the free exchange of ideas, without limitation and impediment. I can express my opinion, you can express your opinion, even if it disagrees with me and is about my opinion. Criticism should be welcome.
If you are yelled at, boycotted, have your show canceled, or get banned from an internet community, then your free speech rights are being violated. You are being punished for your expression of opinion. It doesn't make one iota of a difference that it's not the government that's punishing you. It doesn't really matter who is punishing you. The end result is the same.
People have the legal right to ban you from their property (or any property that they have the right to manage). They can ban you from that property if you are being disruptive, or even if they merely don't like what you are saying. That's their right as property owners. However, if they are merely banning you because they don't agree with your opinion and find it detestable, they are not adhering to the principle of free speech. Sure, they can build their private bubble where they don't have to listen to what they find detestable, and that's fine. But the degree to which they are willing to kick people out because of expression of opinion is a measurement of how willing they are to defend people's freedom of speech, to say whatever they want.
Joined: 3/25/2006
Posts: 850
Location: stuck in Pandora's box HELLPP!!!
Speech is just a form of communication. If you communicate that you're a dickhead, and people "punish" you, they're punishing you for being a dickhead, not for invoking your right to free speech.
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2822
Location: Northern California
Warp wrote:
If you think that when someone says something you don't like he should be punished in some manner, you do not support free speech. You support restricted speech.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 Currently unable to dedicate a lot of time to the site, taking care of family.
Now infrequently posting on BlueskywarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
No, but I'm a constitutionalist and free speech absolutist.
Absolute freedom of speech does not exist anywhere in the world and no one would even want that, including you. Or else, things like death threats would have to be legal.
"Free speech absolutism" does not mean "absolutely everything is allowed to be said." It means "free speech is unconditional, inalienable". It's the principle that you retain your right to free speech regardless of what you may or may not have done or said. Your right to free speech is not conditional on anything. Past (or even present) crimes and infractions do not affect it. You don't lose your right to free speech because you may have committed a heinous crime. Your right to free speech is absolute, irrevocable, inalienable, unconditional. Your right to free speech should not be restricted nor limited because of your past actions. If you allow person A to express opinions, you should also allow person B to express opinions even if you find that person B to be absolutely detestable because of past actions.
There are limits to free speech, but those limits should be as narrow as possible and very carefully considered. A balance should be found that maximizes freedom while restricting criminal activity.
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2822
Location: Northern California
Warp wrote:
If you allow person A to express opinions, you should also allow person B to express opinions even if you find that person B to be absolutely detestable because of past actions.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 Currently unable to dedicate a lot of time to the site, taking care of family.
Now infrequently posting on BlueskywarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
If you think that when someone says something you don't like he should be punished in some manner, you do not support free speech. You support restricted speech.
You had to dig all the way back to 2015 to find something? Am I not allowed to change my opinion during these 6 years?
Anyway, did you read what I wrote about acting on behalf of an organization? I already addressed that previously. I was commenting on the behavior of a member of the site staff acting in his official capacity in the website.
You could perhaps have had more of a point if I had posted back then something like "I found this post by this tasvideos staff member that he made in 2003 in a forum about knitting that I really don't like, please fire him from the staff and ban him from the site."
Statements of transphobia were made by operators publicly in official channels. Whether or not this was intended to be hostile towards transgender people should be obvious. As far as I know, no actions have been taken against this, so I think it's fairly safe to say that the organization overlooks the behavior if not outright endorses it. Additionally I think it's fair to say that nobody likes being bullied. If somebody is transgender and sees this behavior, they can reasonably assume they are not welcome. As a transgender woman, I cannot in good faith send people to freenode where they will be exposed to this bullying.
As a TASVideos staff member, I try to be careful with what I say publicly because I believe that what I say will reflect back on us as a whole. What one says publicly likely reflects internal discourse and policy. It's hard to imagine that one's behavior is somehow completely different.
I see very little reason to believe freenode plans to continue to operate in the same way it did in the past in regards to hate speech. It seems silly to me to argue otherwise.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
Warp, you're conflating the principle of free speech with entitlement to having your opinion be welcome. For instance, if I get on a phone call with you, and start going off about some subject that you don't care about, or otherwise make you bored or uncomfortable, you aren't in any way obligated to indulge me and keep listening to me. In fact, if this is something I'm known to do regularly, you are in no way obligated to even pick up the phone. My free speech rights won't be violated this way. You're just executing upon your own freedom to not listen and not be subjected to something that is uncomfortable. Freedom of speech does not in any way translate to desire to communicate, and it rightfully shouldn't.
Note that I'm not even touching upon any moral aspects here, just the utility alone. There are no universally recognized rights that entitle other people to do anything for you. Communication between people has other layers and protocols through which favors and disfavors are achieved. It's not just a matter of laws and principles.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Warp, you're conflating the principle of free speech with entitlement to having your opinion be welcome. For instance, if I get on a phone call with you, and start going off about some subject that you don't care about, or otherwise make you bored or uncomfortable, you aren't in any way obligated to indulge me and keep listening to me.
No. Nobody can be forced to listen to someone's opinions if they don't want to. They are free to stop listening, leave, or if they are within the private property of the unwilling listener, the speaker can be trespassed.
I have never said otherwise.
Where your principles start playing more of a role is if you are offering a public forum for people to express their opinions, but then silence opinions you personally don't like. The forum might be your personal property and you may have 100% the legal (and even moral) right to ban anybody you want for whatever reason you want, but your banning actions reveal your attitude towards other people's free speech. If two people, other than you, are having a conversation in your forum, the conversation is relatively civil, no insults and threats are being posted, no illegal material is being posted, do you intervene if the conversation is about topics you abhor? Do you have an attitude of "this is my forum, owned by me, I decide what topics are allowed", or do you have an attitude of "as long as the conversation remains civil and legal, I'm fine with the expression of any opinion, even if I personally don't like it." Do you defend their right to express their opinions, or do you want to restrict what is being discussed in your forum because you don't like certain topics?
The principle of free speech entails many things. Among others:
- You are free to express your (non-illegal) opinions in a public forum without negative repercussions, and without being impeded or silenced. (Swearwords are not opinions. Not even if phrased as if they were opinions)
- You are free to comment on and criticize other people's opinions (preferably in a civil manner) without negative repercussions.
- You are not forced to listen to someone if you don't want to.
- You cannot be stopped nor interfered from listening to someone you want to listen to. The message being said cannot be censored or interfered with (eg. with noise), with the intentional purpose of making it harder to understand or listen to.
- You are not compelled, forced or coerced into saying something (or performing any other form of messaging) you don't want to.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11492
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Warp wrote:
Where your principles start playing more of a role is if you are offering a public forum for people to express their opinions, but then silence opinions you personally don't like. The forum might be your personal property and you may have 100% the legal (and even moral) right to ban anybody you want for whatever reason you want, but your banning actions reveal your attitude towards other people's free speech. If two people, other than you, are having a conversation in your forum, the conversation is relatively civil, no insults and threats are being posted, no illegal material is being posted, do you intervene if the conversation is about topics you abhor? Do you have an attitude of "this is my forum, owned by me, I decide what topics are allowed", or do you have an attitude of "as long as the conversation remains civil and legal, I'm fine with the expression of any opinion, even if I personally don't like it." Do you defend their right to express their opinions, or do you want to restrict what is being discussed in your forum because you don't like certain topics?
I guess I have to repeat my question, because we do offer a public forum which has rules that are relevant to this discussion.
Warp wrote:
There is no "implicit endorsement of hate speech". They either endorse it or they don't. Show me where they endorse it and I'll agree with you. Removing some BS social justice language from some random policy page is not endorsement of anything.
TASVideos appears to have similar rules. Are they also "some BS social justice language"?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
TASVideos appears to have similar rules. Are they also "some BS social justice language"?
It's one brief sentence that's far from the worst I have seen out there. It's fine.
Although one could question why it's necessary. I think everybody understands that certain degree of civility and good manners is to be expected. I highly doubt that someone scours such rules pages with a fine tooth comb and if they don't find something explicitly forbidding "hate speech", they take it as sign that they can freely engage in it, but if they see the sentence there, they will abstain from doing it. Forbidding something in some rules page isn't really any sort of deterrent.
It's a bit like saying "murder is not allowed here". Well, duh. I think that's clear to anybody without having to explicitly state it.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11492
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Warp wrote:
Although one could question why it's necessary. I think everybody understands that certain degree of civility and good manners is to be expected. I highly doubt that someone scours such rules pages with a fine tooth comb and if they don't find something explicitly forbidding "hate speech", they take it as sign that they can freely engage in it, but if they see the sentence there, they will abstain from doing it. Forbidding something in some rules page isn't really any sort of deterrent.
It's a bit like saying "murder is not allowed here". Well, duh. I think that's clear to anybody without having to explicitly state it.
It's not how this works. People who care read it and act within those rules. Those who don't, get reminded and warned. And if someone ignores explicit mod warnings, they get banned.
New freenode staff removing the part about hate speech from their rules is not the main and only reason for us to move away. It's a combination of factors that clearly shows the new trend. The part that convinced me something is very very wrong is this document linked in the OP: https://fuchsnet.ch/freenode-resign-letter.txt
Then I literally saw a certain IRC channel I've been in got hijacked and... canceled... for mentioning "libera.chat" in its topic. Similar to what DeHackEd describes. If we add "libera.chat" to the freenode version of #tasvideos, we will lose it too. Does that look like freedom of speech to you? Have you even read https://fuchsnet.ch/freenode-resign-letter.txt?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
No. Nobody can be forced to listen to someone's opinions if they don't want to. They are free to stop listening, leave, or if they are within the private property of the unwilling listener, the speaker can be trespassed.
I have never said otherwise.
Your examples imply that if a public speech platform exists, everyone is equally entitled to the privilege of using it. That's how it works in a vacuum; in practice, people with consistently disagreeable takes are eventually marginalized because at some point nobody wants to listen to them anymore. This inevitably happens in every community; online or otherwise: workplace collectives, groups of friends, hobbyist communities, political movements. I won't give this phenomenon a moral evaluation, I'm just describing it for what it is.
Warp wrote:
Where your principles start playing more of a role is if you are offering a public forum for people to express their opinions, but then silence opinions you personally don't like. The forum might be your personal property and you may have 100% the legal (and even moral) right to ban anybody you want for whatever reason you want, but your banning actions reveal your attitude towards other people's free speech. If two people, other than you, are having a conversation in your forum, the conversation is relatively civil, no insults and threats are being posted, no illegal material is being posted, do you intervene if the conversation is about topics you abhor? Do you have an attitude of "this is my forum, owned by me, I decide what topics are allowed", or do you have an attitude of "as long as the conversation remains civil and legal, I'm fine with the expression of any opinion, even if I personally don't like it." Do you defend their right to express their opinions, or do you want to restrict what is being discussed in your forum because you don't like certain topics?
I support expressing opinions in principle, and I also don't mind stupid people being stupid. But I also recognize that some opinions are plain disrespectful, whether they come from ignorance or malice, and can (and have!) hurt people. I want to minimize that, and will ban consistent offenders; this is what moderators do. Between upholding a nebulous principle at all costs and keeping the community safer and free from toxicism and disruptive behavior, we generally lean towards the latter, because not every cost is justifiable. If what you're about to say is going to hurt a lot of people who did nothing wrong, maybe you should reconsider saying it publicly in the first place. Maybe it won't serve whatever righteous cause you have in mind. Maybe empathy is a better determinant of quality of opinions after all.
On a side note, I've actually conducted some experiments in the past with regards to community management. My friends and I had a Telegram chat for which I was the sole admin, and my idea was to make it completely free from any moderation. People were free to invite other people no matter who they were. At some point a small group of assholes has successfully killed all conversation in the chat because no-one wanted to talk with them being around. It simply wasn't pleasant for them.
Warp wrote:
- You are free to express your (non-illegal) opinions in a public forum without negative repercussions, and without being impeded or silenced. (Swearwords are not opinions. Not even if phrased as if they were opinions)
Note that hate speech is a criminal offense in many jurisdictions. We also have an explicit rule against it as feos has pointed out a number of times in this thread. Which by extension means that you don't support it either, assuming you're consistent in your following of the principles you quote.
In any case, the issue at hand is moving from Freenode to Libera because there's already more than enough reasons to do so. We are also already in the process of doing so. Do you have anything against that in particular, or are you just here to express your conceptual disagreement?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Also, this isn't about disagreements in political opinions or whatever. This is about hate speech. Discriminating people on race, ethnic, LGBT status, or the like, is not something that users should have to deal with, and site community leaders should not have to support or allow people posting it.
