ideally, it sounds very nice, almost as a fairy tale.
someone might argue you are on a mission to debunk conspiracies and change people mind, but these are just useless assumption no one should make. :P
on a practical level, for now, i see a racist and a pro-nazi thread and you spending loads of energy to counteract all the “silly” things that are being said in those post.
i would never do it myself, but i respect you for that.
however, how long will you last before burning out?
bare in mind that, if my original comment was very much judgemental, i’m beyond that now because i believe you might actually be a good soul. :P
oh, i wrote “silly” because i was being sarcastic.
i don’t think they’ve never been challenged. it’s hard to be alive on this planet and never ever being challenged by anyone that sees the world not the way you do. unless you don’t want to be challenged that is (e.g. you debunking their “opinions”, but they deciding to keep finding new excuses to “counter-debunking” you).
I went there to read the rules. They sound good albeit a little vague. My main concerns are desinformation and hate speech. For desinformation its stated that you need to post sources, but what if the sources are those that very often publish fake news and people can verify that and deem it untrusted? What if the sources are generally trusted but the specific piece can be verified to be not truth? Are the posters going to be punished or those cases will be considered beyond your control? As for hate speech, the first rule tells you to be civil, which probably means people will not be disrespectful with each other, but what happens when the object of the speech is outside the dialogue? Even within my political circles i am very annoyed at attempts to dehumanize others, even when they have reasons to be angry at them. What about calls for violence? Some people want to be away from that heat, even if they acknowledge the reality of war.
It’s extremely hard to identify and moderate “fake news”, so my plan is not to =/
If people are not allowed to post missinfo, then people cant counter that evidence.
I’m hoping that users can post counter-evidence and let the zeitgeist decide the truth.
politically’neutral? lol is it a joke? neutral generally means fash, we know that, right? or do we still believe in the neutrality of switzerland?
Sounds like a good topic for https://gtio.io/
post it!
I agree generally that fascists like to hide behind a veil of neutrality, but so do others.
I say “politically neutral” to mean that mods wont ban you for having conservative opinions =/
If someone posts “whats wrong with fascism?” they wont get banned but would be met with ideas.
Trolling would get you banned though, and I don’t want to be a safe harbor for those that seek to troll other instances.
ideally, it sounds very nice, almost as a fairy tale. someone might argue you are on a mission to debunk conspiracies and change people mind, but these are just useless assumption no one should make. :P
on a practical level, for now, i see a racist and a pro-nazi thread and you spending loads of energy to counteract all the “silly” things that are being said in those post.
i would never do it myself, but i respect you for that.
however, how long will you last before burning out?
bare in mind that, if my original comment was very much judgemental, i’m beyond that now because i believe you might actually be a good soul. :P
These seems silly but people actually believe this crap. They will never learn better if people never challenge them.
IDK how long I can do it, but at least their questions have been easily debunkable.
oh, i wrote “silly” because i was being sarcastic. i don’t think they’ve never been challenged. it’s hard to be alive on this planet and never ever being challenged by anyone that sees the world not the way you do. unless you don’t want to be challenged that is (e.g. you debunking their “opinions”, but they deciding to keep finding new excuses to “counter-debunking” you).
anyway, you do you, of course. wish you the best.
love & solidarity.
I went there to read the rules. They sound good albeit a little vague. My main concerns are desinformation and hate speech. For desinformation its stated that you need to post sources, but what if the sources are those that very often publish fake news and people can verify that and deem it untrusted? What if the sources are generally trusted but the specific piece can be verified to be not truth? Are the posters going to be punished or those cases will be considered beyond your control? As for hate speech, the first rule tells you to be civil, which probably means people will not be disrespectful with each other, but what happens when the object of the speech is outside the dialogue? Even within my political circles i am very annoyed at attempts to dehumanize others, even when they have reasons to be angry at them. What about calls for violence? Some people want to be away from that heat, even if they acknowledge the reality of war.
They are vague and will be updated as necessary.
It’s extremely hard to identify and moderate “fake news”, so my plan is not to =/
If people are not allowed to post missinfo, then people cant counter that evidence.
I’m hoping that users can post counter-evidence and let the zeitgeist decide the truth.
This sounds like a good debate topic tho =]
vagueness is the enemy of truth. and justice. and loads of other things.
just give a look to the newest police and immigration laws in europe and us.