Freeze Peach

Free Speech I figured I'd start a thread on free speech, seeing as lainchan doesn't seem to know if it is a free speech zone, or a moderated forum. A lot of people think free speech is "valuable", but really it is just a means of power and little else. Power is what people ultimately want - they want to be heard. However, for most common folk, they're just shouting into the void. Their voice doesn't actually matter. Does that mean they don't have free speech? I don't think so, it just means they don't have power. What about on lainchan? Well, there's certainly an opportunity to say whatever you want, but that doesn't mean it'll be seen. The mods here are somewhat inconsistent and tend to stumble through their job, aimlessly and ignorant. The only consistent "moderation" is through word filters. When a topic gets very hot, it gets the kibash. So, speech on lainchan isn't really all that "free" because it could be intentionally or haphazardly destroyed. The /q/ board is interesting in that anything goes, but ultimately it is useless because it isn't listed in /mega/. So the situation on lainchan is it isn't really a "free speech zone" nor a moderated forum, since it doesn't consistently live up to either standard. This is important because lainchan is going to effectively be torn apart by people pulling in either way until it is an incoherent mess. So what's the benefits of a free speech zone? Well, all ideas get equal weight for starters - there is no bias for or against any one particular idea. Each discussion can come organically, and ultimately a topic will either (1) flourish or (2) fail. If it fails, it is because overwhelmingly, people used their voice - their free speech and its power - to shut it down. When people are united for/against any given thing, that thing can be given the space it deserves (or even none at all if deserved). This is having faith in your users, and not treating them like helpless children. What about actual, consistent, correct, careful, and considered moderation? Well, first it has to be all of the things listed, otherwise you're just pulling out the flowers with the weeds. This is very damaging to a community. Lainchan is slow not because of its obscurity, but its moderation. Also, the modes of moderation are ripe for abuse here. It only takes one bad actor to permanently taint a single conversation and send it to modville where it'll never be heard from again. This is due to (1) unwritten rules (or ad hoc rules) and (2) inconsistent application. Moderation is poor when it cannot correct either/both of these failings. This type of moderation is VERY harmful to a community. It's like abusing an animal - they won't trust you anymore. I hope others can contribute to these analysis of free speech and moderation.

>>30229 O..oh no I'm guNNA- NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER

Lainchan has never been a free speech zone, its an ethnostate for lainons safe from the garbage that destroyed /g/. If free speech means >>30232 to you there are plenty of other soykafholes for you to wrestle in, voat or gab or whatever. Also free speech is a fuarrrking lie. The only reason commies and nazis are allowed to have an opinion is because they are laughably impotent. Should the condition cease to be either democracy will revoke their rights to protect itself or radicals take power and revoke it themselves after victory.

>>30233 "Free speech" is a philosophy, not a law. So it isn't a "lie" >>30229 My serious opinion is that free speech is good for the elite reasoners that can examine objectively, terrible for the gullible masses swayed by emotion and rigorless logic.

>>30234 And I bet you and everyone you agree with happen to be members of the former group whereas everyone else is in the latter.

>>30233 >The only reason commies and nazis are allowed to have an opinion is because they are laughably impotent That's why these two factions have all the power, they're far from impotent. Congress was on the right, now its far left. The oval office is hard right. >>30234 You'll have to provide a means of telling the two apart if you ever hope to make that argument. >>30235 You're behaving exactly as he described. Step back, check your emotions, and return with a clear, rational head.

>>30235 I regularly enjoy discussing with others counter to my opinions, as long as the discussion remains proper. Your attack of character would place you with the masses.

>>30236 >You'll have to provide a means of telling the two apart if you ever hope to make that argument. It does not follow. I spoke of ideals, not implementation. Though you find that the two freely separate regardless. The insular congregate in echochambers that allow clan rule. The open minded drift to places they can talk freely without consequence. It's not perfect, but surprisingly effective.

>>30240 That sounds like good reason in favor of free speech. Echo chambers exist in-part because of moderation. You eliminate the dissenting views (usually for technical reasons above and beyond the content of those views), and in doing so foment an echo chamber. This is what we should be hoping to avoid here.

>>30240 Ideals or not, if you cannot tell them apart, then that ideal is worthless.

>>30241 Yes, zealous moderation has ruined many great spaces. >>30242 Men from women is the easiest discriminant to improve the conversation. Yes, there are many exceptions, but the average is almost always improved.

>>30243 >zealous moderation ruined many great spaces I think it's more inconsistent and haphazard moderation that is a bigger harm. If it was consistent, then it would shape the culture rather than destroying it. >Men from women How does this help, exactly? Let me guess, "muh women can't computer"? ok bóomer.

>>30244 Women are rarely objective. It's uncommon enough in men these days, women are a lost cause. And zealous moderation is problem because you have to consider the appeasement factor with every comment.

>>30246 Not really, zealous moderation could mean a lot of things including giving warnings instead of nuking it from orbit. Lainchan has a significant problem with the latter approach.

>>30246 Why are you here then? Theres plenty of sites with no moderation and no women.

>>30246

>>30248 >>30249 women can't do: logic, programming, philosophy, politics, drive (damn), math... so ya, they're good to be left out.

>>30250 AMD.

>>30248 Give us a few then. Why do you want women on your site? Just look at the demise of Reddit. Yes, there is overlap between men and women, but they mostly turn everything into hugboxes and safespaces before demanding special considerations. Then everything has to be wholesome and not long after comes the crusade against "assholes" and by that time anyone with a shred of testosterone (and typically, intelligence) has left whilst the the male thralls are subjected to a compromised moderation.

>>30253 You're going to have to back up those claims, that's some pretty wild conjecture.

>>30253 I'm perfectly sure you're capable of backing that claim up.

>>30254 Back up with what? The numerous studies that show women are more emotional? The fact that as communities become more feminine, they adhere to the female mindset? The mating strategies of women that have no girlfriends? Please, argue in good faith. We all know what I'm describing is real, the question is whether you think that's positive.

>>30257 You're arguing in bad faith. If it is so obvious and apparent, you should be able to cite a minimum of one study backing your claims up. And no, I'm not talking about your claim women are emotional, but that communities are affected as you claim. Show us the proof, otherwise you're just blowing hot air.

>>30257 Back up all of your claims, they're all sus.

>>30257 Bring up the studies. Show us the communities that were "ruined" because of women. Go ahead.

>>30257 >We all know what I'm describing is real, the question is whether you think that's positive. Evidence is required for everything you describe.

>>30257 >We all know what I'm describing is real >Please, argue in good faith I really can't tell if I'm being baited.

>>30263

I think there's merit to the claim that moderation can and is harmful to certain types of speech. The problem with going with this line of reasoning is leftists are so quick to say "oh so you want to use slurrs", but that really isn't it. There's a pedophilia topic active in /hum/ and it is definitely a topic people should be wary of, but it isn't being destroyed. This seems like effective moderation.

>>30266 >There's a pedophilia topic active in /hum/ For now.

>>30268 I get the impression the mods are largely absent. Really gross threads pop up all the time and go on for a while before getting nixed.

>>30269 >>30268 Honestly, we should be sad that such a thread will likely get killed. Overall, the quality of discussion is excellent, and there's no promotion going on, just analysis of their relationship with lolicon. That isn't really pedophilia, it's just harmless cartoons.

>>30271 You just aren't thinking about the imaginary children, you heartless monster.

>>30272 Where's the harm though?

>>30258 >>30259 >>30260 >>30261 >>30263 >>30265 None of you women could manage a 2 minute Google? Thank you for proving my point. Many more if you search for "gender difference emotional expression online" into Google scholar. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/64d7/b995dac7ac1cc27e54d93cb1fa4f3f339450.pdf https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/10949310050191809

>>30274 You mentioned a specific site as an example. We asked for examples of subcommunities which had been affected in the specific way you described and you can't even do that. I mean, I expected as much, but still. >None of you women So much for good faith, huh.

>>30274 Holy soykaf are you fuarrrking stupid? Nobody fuarrrking cares about their emotionality. We're interested in your bullshit claims about them destroying sites. You're acting like a nigger, which is 10000x worse than any woman

>>30274 And to make things more explicit for you attentionless redditors, the studies I linked showed that mixed communities made men more emotional.

>>30277 >>30274 Show us the proof of your claim: women cause online communities to fall apart.

>>30277 That doesn't actually back up your allegation. Try again.

>>30277 You claimed that women are a cause of online communities falling apart. Quit shifting the goalposts and prove your original claim, you fuarrrking dumbass.

>>30274 >None of you women could manage a 2 minute Google? Glad you dropped the pretense of having an argument in good faith.

>>30280 >>30279 >>30278 >>30276 >>30275 Ignore this bad faith actor. The topic is free speech and moderation. Not women, not reddit, not minorities.

>>30275 Read the studies. >>30278 >>30276 I never said destroy. >>30280 See above. I'm out. Not arguing with those in bad faith. I've had better debate on Reddit.

>I'm out. Not arguing with those in bad faith. Huh.

>>30284 So much irony. I looked at his "citation" and it has nothing to do with his claim. Back on topic: Moderation is a necessary evil. It prevents soykafheads like that guy from fuarrrking up good discussions. Free speech without constraint is not really all that good or desirable. Words are much more powerful than we give them credit.

>>30285 >So much irony. I looked at his "citation" and it has nothing to do with his claim. Going to back that up buddy? You know what discussion is right?

>>30283 >Why do you want women on your site? Just look at the demise of Reddit. Yes, there is overlap between men and women, but they mostly turn everything into hugboxes and safespaces before demanding special considerations. Then everything has to be wholesome and not long after comes the crusade against "assholes" and by that time anyone with a shred of testosterone (and typically, intelligence) has left whilst the the male thralls are subjected to a compromised moderation. The word is absent, but the meaning is pretty clear. You meant "destroy", and you never backed it up one iota. Glad you're leaving, cause you're very much a bad faith poster. >>30285 Moderation should not remove anything or make it inaccessible. It should hide the comment, but allow it to be seen. This preserves free speech, and allows crap to be cleaned up effectively without the risk of overbearing moderation.

>>30286 Could've sworn you were out.

>women enter free speech thread >Shit it up and demand moderation Like clockwork.

>>30289 >>30286 Oh you're back? Care to back up your claims?

>>30289 >women enter You're surely able to prove this, right?

>>30289 >Nigger enters >soykafs all over the whole conversation

See, normally I'd say a lack of moderation is best but people like this idiot show up.

>>30285 We need ways to filter people out, like a UID number or something. I don't think moderation should be done by people who clearly don't actually use the site. >>30287 This. Moderation should be done by the users in a fully transparent way. >>30293 We just need better tools.

So this is the power of HRT meds. Incessant, rabid, emotions- with the refusal of logic. This thread will be my next citation.

>>30295 Pretty funny to see these women and trannies have a hissyfit. I find the best filter against them are communities where logic is required for participation. Embedded forums are usually based

Hey guys, this is >>30295 is the pedo 5g vaccine rf poster. He's just still salty cause his threads keep getting deleted. Also, he's >>30296 doubleposting now, and will likely continue to derail the thread. IGNORE HIM AND POST.

>>30296 Funny you should mention that. There are a few enclavesi know of. Shan't mention them though, lest the rabids follow.

>>30298 Nice schizo post

Are you mad about your threads being deleted? I agree with some of your opinions but this really isn't the way to go.

>>30229 This thread is proof free speech will never work. Someone provides sources and they're rejected without a single argument. Humanity is doomed.

I still really can't tell if I'm being baited.

>>30229 Why is this thread so active? I suspect same users on both sides

Free speech must be absolutely upheld in all situations. There should be zero moderation. There are reasons: - Marginal views and voices are overwhelmingly harmed by moderation - Sensitive topics will always be controversial, and should be allowed to go on. - What is seen as "truth" might be untrue, and deserves to be rationally debated. >>30301 Those sources were checked out by multiple people and they all roundly understood that it doesn't back up the poster's claims. The claim is "women destroy online communities", and that is yet unproven. However, I know it's YOU posting (bad faith as always, stay classy) so it's obvious you're pretending.

>>30304 >women destroy online communities Link me this quote, else you are arguing in bad faith.

>>30305 Come on.

>>30305 >Why do you want women on your site? Just look at the demise of Reddit. Yes, there is overlap between men and women, but they mostly turn everything into hugboxes and safespaces before demanding special considerations. Then everything has to be wholesome and not long after comes the crusade against "assholes" and by that time anyone with a shred of testosterone (and typically, intelligence) has left whilst the the male thralls are subjected to a compromised moderation. You're arguing in VERY bad faith. Reported all of your posts.

>>30306 What's the matter? Cat has your tongue?

>>30307 W..well he didn't outright say the word destroy! Checkmate!

>>30307 So the "quote" is wrong. Nice bad faith. >>30309 >Nooo!! Let me misquote and strawman!!!

>>30304 Moderation separates the wheat from the chaff though. If you'll observe this thread, there's one person generating a LOT of chaff. Moderation, done right, would prevent this. Unfortunately, the mods are all absentees.

>>30311 I agree. One person calmly mentions that women are more emotional and suddenly same users, insults and emotions are thrown against him. Read this thread from start to finish and it is evident who the disruptors are.

>>30310 Listen, man. Lainchan is not 4chan. Drive that deep into your skull. Lainchan is not 4chan.

>>30313 Agreed. Leave.

>>30310 lol, you're really dumb. We all can see that. A sad, prejudiced little man. How sad. >>30311 The thing is nobody "does moderation right". People are always going to be fallible, and have their own tunnel vision. Rules mean very little if they're not enforced consistently. That's something op mentions, because it is imperative that it be done if there's any hope for moderation to be effective and beneficial. >>30314 >>30312 Nice schizo posts.

>>30315 Put it this way. You would be thrown out of a debating society for your behaviour, whereas I would remain. Mentioning that women are more emotional seemed to be a flashpoint for your spergout (ironically proving me right).

>>30316 I'm in a debate society, and I've won multiple debates against other teams. You're: -- using the motte and bailey strategy. Being against women is your bailey, but your motte is "women destroy chans". This would disqualify you. --- using "evidence" that doesn't actually support your claim. This would disqualify you. --- begging the question. This is a fallacy, and again, would disqualify you. --- Insulting people. Needless to say, another disqualification. --- Misogyny. You're a special little snowflake man, so special and unique because you're male. But this would also get you disqualified --- Schizo posting. This wouldn't fly in a debate club, cause we all know it's you.

>>30318 >women destroy chans Please link me where I said this, else your argument is void.

>>30320 It's been posted. Get lost you kíke

>>30321 Where?

Free speech is a problem. It can be used to incite violence, and even lead some (weak people) to suicide. Moderation is essential to prevent spergs like the one fuarrrking with this thread. Unfortunately, the mods on lainchan are largely absent from their duties, and everything ends up being an ad hoc job. The rules don't seem to be well-enforced, and there's very obvious "unwritten rules" that get enforced haphazardly. There's a reason places like 4chan suck ass, it's the lack of moderation.

Moved to >>>/q/8478.