Aequalitatis ac Libertatis wrote:Also never claimed i'd be able to persuade anyone, I simply gave my answer, like requested.
Fair enough.
Advertisement
by Picairn » Tue Jan 26, 2021 4:25 am
Aequalitatis ac Libertatis wrote:2: Use a satellite, is there a tiny teapot? No? Exactly. Negatives can be proved just as positives can.
by Amorosa-Coonarra Coasts » Tue Jan 26, 2021 4:28 am
by Jebslund » Tue Jan 26, 2021 4:41 am
Aequalitatis ac Libertatis wrote:2: Use a satellite, is there a tiny teapot? No? Exactly. Negatives can be proved just as positives can.
by Whitemore » Tue Jan 26, 2021 5:10 am
by CoraSpia » Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:03 am
Frisbeeteria wrote:CoraSpia wrote:You appear to have misunderstood me.
I didn't misunderstand you. I just didn't agree with you.
In your ideal web space, there would be no limits on what could be posted and debated. You've made that argument multiple times over the years. The site owner, staff, and (I believe) the majority of players disagree with you. We have limits, and the mods enforce them. I don't see that changing no matter how many times you make that complaint.
If you want your ideal of an un-moderated forum, this ain't it. You're going to have to create that on your own.
by CoraSpia » Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:10 am
Whitemore wrote:I think that all Q-Anon content should be banned from the site, it's a dangerous ideology that isn't needed to be on here. My father personally believes in some of Q-Anon and has been unnecessarily rude/racist to some of my friends that are on the left side of the Political spectrum just because he knows their beliefs and I know where he goes for his news, so I hold Facebook and other social media sites as responsible for not banning any Q-Anon related content earlier enough, if they had maybe then my dad's exposure would have been more limited. If people still want to see Q-Anon related things they can go to other websites where that is the purpose of them like Parlar, they shouldn't get it from Nationstates (Which I think can be a example of how to handle this correctly.)
by The New California Republic » Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:15 am
CoraSpia wrote:Whitemore wrote:I think that all Q-Anon content should be banned from the site, it's a dangerous ideology that isn't needed to be on here. My father personally believes in some of Q-Anon and has been unnecessarily rude/racist to some of my friends that are on the left side of the Political spectrum just because he knows their beliefs and I know where he goes for his news, so I hold Facebook and other social media sites as responsible for not banning any Q-Anon related content earlier enough, if they had maybe then my dad's exposure would have been more limited. If people still want to see Q-Anon related things they can go to other websites where that is the purpose of them like Parlar, they shouldn't get it from Nationstates (Which I think can be a example of how to handle this correctly.)
That's entirely on your dad, not the websites. The websites do not have a duty to protect your dad from reading things that might change his mind; he has the ability to check the accuracy of what he reads on the internet and act accordingly.
by CoraSpia » Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:26 am
The New California Republic wrote:CoraSpia wrote:That's entirely on your dad, not the websites. The websites do not have a duty to protect your dad from reading things that might change his mind; he has the ability to check the accuracy of what he reads on the internet and act accordingly.
Counterprecedent: Covid misinformation being banned from the site.
by Whitemore » Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:24 am
CoraSpia wrote:The New California Republic wrote:Counterprecedent: Covid misinformation being banned from the site.
I made my thoughts clear on that when it was the point of discussion. Max can obviously choose to ban certain things, however it is wrong for Whitemore to hold particular websites responsible for the changes in his fathers political beliefs. I guess it's easier to blame a faceless company than a member of your own family.
by The Unified Missourtama States » Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:29 am
Aequalitatis ac Libertatis wrote:No
Censorship is wrong, plain and simple. It's an idea, not an organization, and if you censor an opposing idea you by default prove that you can't counter the idea, thus proving yourself wrong and them correct.
And before someone responds with "what about censorship of child porn?", an idea by itself cannot hurt people, child porn can.
by Twilight Imperium » Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:54 am
by Fahran » Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:39 am
The Unified Missourtama States wrote:Just like child porn, Q-Anon has hurt people. Also oppositely, child porn is only an idea, there is no proof that child pornography is inherently always harmful, but it is banned.
The Unified Missourtama States wrote:But Q-Anon is definitely dangerous it has killed people, it advocates to kill people both individually and genocidally, so yes, by your definition it should be banned.
by Elkendia » Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:41 am
Kranostav wrote:Speaking from the experience of being mod/admin of many different communities of quite a large size. It should be understood that asking mods to take on the task of cracking down on an additional topic is not a small ask. Especially when it involves politics and just how charged that can get.
Is Qanon radical drivel with zero truth behind it? Yes it is.
Will people who believe and repeat Qanon rhetoric probably break a plethora of other rules? Yes they will
Is moderation of Qanon content an easy task? Like moderation in all political subjects, it won't be.
Straight banning topics can get weird to enforce, especially when the public criticism vastly outweighs the support. Imo it's easier to call out the lies and shoot down their efforts at misinformation instead of pushing them to an echo chamber, but also for the sake of subjecting a moderation team to figuring out what crosses the line in simply talking about it.
Like the alt right and radical movements, their members flame and become aggressive in response to engagement that is at odds with their worldview. This will lead to bans anyway. It generally takes fairly reasonable people to calmly discuss politics without flaming and breaking forum rules, and reasonable people generally do not subscribe to Qanon and most other radical beliefs.
The current ruleset is sufficient to moderate extremes imo.
by Minoa » Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:50 am
by Echo Chamber Thought Police » Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:57 am
by Cordel One » Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:43 pm
Echo Chamber Thought Police wrote:No. We do not ban people simply for having unsanitary views. I believe current guidelines on trolling, baiting are enough.
by Great Algerstonia » Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:47 pm
Resilient Acceleration wrote:After a period of letting this discussion run its course without my involvement due to sheer laziness and a new related NS project, I have returned with an answer and that answer is Israel.
by CoraSpia » Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:57 pm
by Drew Durrnil » Wed Jan 27, 2021 11:16 pm
Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:What can I say? I do know how to improve this out of all measure though. Firstly, print out your draft on some nice paper. Secondly, take your draft out for a healthy walk in the country. Next find a field of cows and feed the draft to them. Finally just wait - the improved end product will come out of their ends so to speak.
But seriously this is just another in a long line of poorly researched, badly written, lazy attempts.
by Echo Chamber Thought Police » Thu Jan 28, 2021 4:19 am
Drew Durrnil wrote:My opinion:
Ban all Q-Anon content due to it having misinformation, advocating violence, and more. If Trump came onto this site and was banned (he would be banned by existing NS law), there's no reason not to ban QAnon.
by Katganistan » Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:29 am
Echo Chamber Thought Police wrote:Drew Durrnil wrote:My opinion:
Ban all Q-Anon content due to it having misinformation, advocating violence, and more. If Trump came onto this site and was banned (he would be banned by existing NS law), there's no reason not to ban QAnon.
We do not ban particular beliefs or ideology. We do not even ban racism or fascism, there are many open racist, fascists, even nazis roaming freely on this site. Banning QAnon would go against precedent.
by Echo Chamber Thought Police » Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:34 am
Katganistan wrote:Echo Chamber Thought Police wrote:We do not ban particular beliefs or ideology. We do not even ban racism or fascism, there are many open racist, fascists, even nazis roaming freely on this site. Banning QAnon would go against precedent.
The site does not.
You are not representing the site, as a reminder. That comes mighty close to sounding as if you're speaking with authority, like a moderator or administrator.
by New Visayan Islands » Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:00 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Dantek
Advertisement