The fediverse condemns free speech. The fediverse bans unapproved opinions and wrong think,
“The fediverse” isn’t a monolith; different instances have wildly different moderation policies. The instance-level federation-or-defederation paradigm is certainly limiting, but the existence of moderation does not mean anyone “condemns free speech”.
On the contrary, moderated spaces are actually an essential ingredient for enabling free speech.
Calling people mentally ill because of differences of opinion (as I see you are prone to doing) has a chilling effect.
Or, put another way, persistently being a jerk to someone is a way to censor them.
I consider my volunteer moderation activities here on lemmy to be a form of free-speech activism.
proving that the fediverse is an enemy to the principals of Edward Snowden.
Where do you think Snowden hangs out online? 4chan? Maybe? But the only place I know where he posts is, sadly, twitter (where he he last posted in January). Twitter’s moderation policies are ever changing subject to the whims of one guy, but it also has never been and never will be unmoderated. Do you think twitter is also “enemy to the principals of Edward Snowden”?
But it’s fun to be on here one in awhile knowing fhe right thing to say that forces people to come undone and expose their true personality.
You’re here because the unmoderated types of spaces you’re implicitly idealizing are actually inhabited by edgelords (and spammers, and CSAM). More interesting discussions online tend to happen in well-moderated spaces.
Find one single instance where users are free to reject or critcize religion, reject trans people, criticize conservatives, and criticize leftists, all on a single instance.
People just don’t want to be around a bigot. Simple as. Social harms that might come to you for espousing views that aren’t acceptable to the surrounding community isn’t censorship, it’s just social rejection on legitimate grounds. Fix your heart or GTFO.
If that were true, speaking with strangers in public places would not contradict fediverse postings. It seems that being outside talking with strangers face to face closers aligns, but not identical, to what’s on Twitter than every single fediverse service. If you can’t be friends with someone who doesn’t accept what you believe but has other interests away from the internet, not being online, that is lack of intellectual curiosity. Someone, I’m not suggesting you, who can’t spend an afternoon with people without checking phone for new messages lives in misery 10 out of 10 times.
“The fediverse” isn’t a monolith; different instances have wildly different moderation policies. The instance-level federation-or-defederation paradigm is certainly limiting, but the existence of moderation does not mean anyone “condemns free speech”.
On the contrary, moderated spaces are actually an essential ingredient for enabling free speech.
Calling people mentally ill because of differences of opinion (as I see you are prone to doing) has a chilling effect.
Or, put another way, persistently being a jerk to someone is a way to censor them.
I consider my volunteer moderation activities here on lemmy to be a form of free-speech activism.
Where do you think Snowden hangs out online? 4chan? Maybe? But the only place I know where he posts is, sadly, twitter (where he he last posted in January). Twitter’s moderation policies are ever changing subject to the whims of one guy, but it also has never been and never will be unmoderated. Do you think twitter is also “enemy to the principals of Edward Snowden”?
You’re here because the unmoderated types of spaces you’re implicitly idealizing are actually inhabited by edgelords (and spammers, and CSAM). More interesting discussions online tend to happen in well-moderated spaces.
Find one single instance where users are free to reject or critcize religion, reject trans people, criticize conservatives, and criticize leftists, all on a single instance.
People just don’t want to be around a bigot. Simple as. Social harms that might come to you for espousing views that aren’t acceptable to the surrounding community isn’t censorship, it’s just social rejection on legitimate grounds. Fix your heart or GTFO.
If that were true, speaking with strangers in public places would not contradict fediverse postings. It seems that being outside talking with strangers face to face closers aligns, but not identical, to what’s on Twitter than every single fediverse service. If you can’t be friends with someone who doesn’t accept what you believe but has other interests away from the internet, not being online, that is lack of intellectual curiosity. Someone, I’m not suggesting you, who can’t spend an afternoon with people without checking phone for new messages lives in misery 10 out of 10 times.