Communities should not be overly moderated in order to enforce a specific narrative. Respectful disagreement should be allowed in a smaller proportion to the established narrative.
Humans are naturally inclined to believe a single narrative when they’re only presented with a single narrative. That’s the basis of how fiction works. You can’t tell someone a story if they’re questioning every paragraph. However, a well placed sentence questioning that narrative gives the reader the option to chose. They’re no longer in a story being told by one author, and they’re free to choose the narrative that makes sense to them, even if one narrative is being pushed much more heavily than the other.
Unfortunately, some malicious actors are hijacking this natural tendency to be invested in fiction, and they’re using it to create absurd, cult-like trends in non-fiction. They’re using this for various nefarious ends, to turn us against each other, to generate profit, and to affect politics both domestically and internationally.
In a fully anonymous social media platform, we can’t counter this fully. But we can prune some of the most egregious echo chambers.
We’re aware that this policy is going to be subjective. It won’t be popular in all instances. We’re going to allow some “flat earth” comments. We’re going to force some moderators to accept some “flat earth” comments. The point of this is that you should be able to counter those comments with words, and not need moderation/admin tools to do so. One sentence that doesn’t jive with the overall narrative should be easily countered or ignored.
It’s harder to just dismiss that comment if it’s interrupting your fictional story that’s pretending to be real. “The moon is upside down in Australia” does a whole lot more damage to the flat earth argument than “Nobody has crossed the ice wall” does to the truth. The purpose of allowing both of these is to help everyone get a little closer to reality and avoid incubating extreme cult-like behavior online.
A user should be able to (respectfully, infrequently) post/comment about a study showing marijuana is a gateway drug to !marijuana without moderation tools being used to censor that content.
Of course this isn’t about marijuana. There’s a small handful of self-selected moderators who are very transparently looking to push their particular narrative. And they don’t want to allow discussion. They want to function as propaganda and an incubator. Our goal is to allow a few pinholes of light into the Truman show they wish to create. When those users’ pinholes are systematically shut down, we as admins can directly fix the issue.
We don’t expect this policy to be perfect. Admins are not aware of everything that happens on our instances and don’t expect to be. This is a tool that allows us to trim the most extreme of our communities and guide them to something more reasonable. This policy is the board that we point to when we see something obscene on [email protected] so that we can actually do something about it without being too authoritarian ourselves. We want to enable our users to counter the absolute BS, and be able to step in when self-selected moderators silence those reasonable people.
Some communities will receive an immediate notice with a link to this new policy. The most egregious communities will comply, or their moderators will be removed from those communities.
Moderators, if someone is responding to many root comments in every thread, that’s not “in a smaller proportion” and you’re free to do what you like about that. If their “counter” narrative posts are making up half of the posts to your community, you’re free to address that. If they’re belligerent or rude, of course you know what to do. If they’re just saying something you don’t like, respectfully, and they’re not spamming it, use your words instead of your moderation abilities.
It isn’t necessarily ‘pure hate speech’ and shutting off the discussion is what is leading you to come to this conclusion. If a pill were developed that allowed someone diagnosed with autism to live more like the general public without a lifetime of current therapies, and no side-effects why is me suggesting they consider this option ‘pure hate’? Can you see how one-sided your stance is?
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.
So, not ‘pure hate’. There’s some impurities in there apparently.
There are more issues with autism than ‘it breaks social norms’ and seeking treatments for the condition is looking to improve lives, not being hateful.
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.
Autism is more than just social difficulties. There are repetitive behavioural problems that can be downright harmful to the individual if particularly severe. To me it sounds like you are or know someone with autism that isn’t particularly severe and are pretty comfortable with it. That’s great, but what about those suffering from the disorder that aren’t responding to treatment as well to the point their communication deficits are causing problems with their education and future prospects? What do you say to those whom a cure could vastly improve their life? I have a hard time understanding how treatment is ‘good’ but cure is ‘hate’. Wanting a cure to be available isn’t the same as expecting it be mandatory.
I think the issue is you are assuming some level of judgment or condescension because of the condition and that is not the case. A person with autism is a person and absolutely be treated as such.