@ernest how do I report a Magazin on kbin.social ? There is a usere called “ps” who is posting to his own “antiwoke” Magazin on kbin.social. Please remove this and dont give them a chance to etablish them self on kbin.social. When I report his stuff it will go to him because he is the moderator of the magazin? Seems like a problem. Screenshot of the “antiwoke” Magazin /sub on kbin.social. 4 Headlines are visible, 2 exampels: “Time to reject the extrem trans lobby harming our society” “How to end wokeness” #Moderation #kbin #kbin.social 📎

edit: dont feed the troll, im shure ernest will delet them all when he sees this. report and move on.

Edit 2 : Ernest responded:
“I just need a little more time. There will likely be a technical break announced tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Along with the migration to new servers, we will be introducing new moderation tools that I am currently working on and testing (I had it planned for a bit later in my roadmap). Then, I will address your reports and handle them very seriously. I try my best to delete sensitive content, but with the current workload and ongoing relocation, it takes a lot of time. I am being extra cautious now. The regulations are quite general, and I would like to refine them together with you and do everything properly. For now, please make use of the option to block the magazine/author.”

  • rastilin@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem is that by that point it will have grown beyond manageability. You know the “Nazi bar” saying.

    There’s a bunch of people (who are Nazis) and they seem cool, quiet, well spoken, just having a drink. And they bring their friends and those guys are cool too. Then those guys bring their friends and those guys are less cool and now normal people don’t drink at the bar anymore and you look around and it’s a Nazi bar and you can’t make them leave or they’ll start causing “problems”. So. I’m all for just using the brutal hammer of censorship.

    It’s not a free speech platform and no one ever said it was.

    • genoxidedev1@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hate speech is not part of free speech anyways. Fuck nazis. Everyone that gets offended by that can get fucked as well.

      • rastilin@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 year ago

        Something else that occurred to me. If someone posted something that was pro-woke in /r/conservative or on Parler or any of those other apps, they’d get banned immediately. “Free Speech” only seems to be a concern when it’s right-wingers posting on left-leaning forums, never the reverse.

        I think that taking the free speech argument at face value in the present day just means you’re gullible.

        • magnetosphere@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think hardcore conservatives simply don’t have an inherent sense of empathy. That’s why they don’t really care about the victims of a crime, disaster, etc. until it happens to them personally. They do not have the perspective to put themselves in another person’s shoes.

          It’s NOT an intelligence issue. It’s easy to write people off as stupid, but that’s not the case. For them, being unable to think with empathy is as natural as being unable to see infrared light.

          They’ve figured out that making themselves appear to be victims can sometimes make people listen, but they can’t fully explain why. That lack of understanding is why they don’t see the hypocrisy in banning people from their platforms, but then whining loudly when they’re treated the same way.

          This is all just guesswork, but it’s the best explanation I’ve been able to come up with that doesn’t make my head explode.

          • genoxidedev1@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            Cross out the “hardcore”, lack of empathy is very much a core part of conservatism no matter which side of conservatism, social | fiscal, you lean into and by how much. If you’re socially conservative you want every social aspect to stay as it is which proves inherently a lack of empathy. If you’re fiscally conservative you want monetary value to stay as is (in terms of inflation and cost-cutting etc.) no matter whom it hurts (as long as it doesn’t hurt you, of course).

            Which is why I personally think it actually is (also) an intelligence issue, because the people that are not socially conservative and only fiscally conservative usually vote for the party of big government and military spending ® which goes against anything fiscally conservative and as a “cool” side effect also proves to be detrimental to social values of different people and groups.

            You probably know the quote by George Carlin, as its a told tale as old as day. I think the quote nicely illustrates the voting game in the US.

        • h34d@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Reminds me of a quote by Nazi minister of propaganda Joseph Goebbels from 1935, after the Nazis took power:

          “Wenn unsere Gegner sagen: Ja, wir haben Euch doch früher die […] Freiheit der Meinung zugebilligt – –, ja, Ihr uns, das ist doch kein Beweis, daß wir das Euch auch tuen sollen! […] Daß Ihr das uns gegeben habt, – das ist ja ein Beweis dafür, wie dumm Ihr seid!”

          source

          Rough translation:

          “When our enemies say: But we’ve granted you […] freedom of opinion back in the day – –, well, yes, you granted it to us, but that is no proof that we should do likewise! […] The fact that you granted it to us, – that is only proof for how stupid you are!”

          For fascists at least talking about freedom of speech and the like is just another tool they try to wield in their quest to gain power, nothing else.

      • AshDene@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        It depends on your definition of free speech, the US constitution does consider it part of free speech.

        The US constitution also considers free speech a right that protect a websites right not to repeat hate speech, not a users “right” to force a website to host their speech. In the constitutions view of the world free speech is protection against the government, not a tool to force other people to host your speech.

        • genoxidedev1@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          34
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I really do not care about your constitution. I’m from Germany not the US.

          ‘“Germany places strict limits on speech and expression when it comes to right-wing extremism” or anything reminiscent of Nazism. Hate speech on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity also is banned in Germany.’

          And I think this is the way all countries should handle it. No need to defend people promoting hate speech by debating me or your definition of free speach, I do not adhere by it.

          Edit: I will wear 10A(ssholes’) downvote as a badge of honor, thank you!

          • AshDene@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’m actually not from the US, I was just giving it as an example because it is the most famous one that unequivocally does include it.

            What I’m really saying is “free speech” isn’t really one thing. It means different things in different contexts. For instance the breadth of “free speech” you should allow in what you promise to repeat (that’s what hosting something is) is much smaller than the breadth of “free speech” that you should not think less of someone for saying is in turn much smaller than the breadth of “free speech” that you should not wield the power of government to punish. And people legitimately disagree on where each of those boundaries lie.

            I do think I missed the mark with the comment you replied to rereading it. I raised it because when someone says “It’s not a free speech platform and no one ever said it was” they are using the american republican-troll’s definition of free speech that means “anything but child porn”, and I think your reply was misunderstanding their comment as a result. But I don’t think I successfully conveyed my point.

          • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Everything else aside, how you gonna say you don’t care about the US Constitution and then bring up the German Constitution? No one cares about that one either.

          • updawg@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It depends on your definition of free speech

            It’s one definition that is different than the definition that had been provided in the parent comment.

        • albinanigans@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Appending:

          Free speech also doesn’t mean “freedom from consequences.” And sometimes those include getting your shit deleted from a website or dragged up and down social media.

    • 10A@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m no Nazi, but I get your point. What you don’t realize is once the bar kicks the Nazis out, they start their own bar, and there their numbers grow. A more intelligent approach is to rationally talk with them, as Daryl Davis has with KKK members.

      • effingjoe@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can’t reason a person out of a stance they didn’t reason themselves into.

        For instance: How would you even begin to reason with someone that believes in demons? Where could any discussion even go if one side can waive away anything they don’t agree with by claiming it is a trick from a demon?

        • unsophisticated@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I went through 3 pages of their comments and what I‘ve read were respectful and well articulated comments from someone quite religious and with conservative values.

          Maybe I missed some extreme stuff but I wouldn’t be surprised if you guys are completely making this up.

          • hypelightfly@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Go further, where they reminisce about the time when “homosexuals were regularly taken outside and beaten to a pulp” which made it rare for anyone to think such behavior (being homosexual) was acceptable.

            Their view that freedom shouldn’t include the freedom to “exercise perverted pleasures of the flesh”.

            They are a modern nazi going full fascist to destroy the others they hate.

            • cottonmon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Holy shit, he has a post that basically equates being gay with murderers and thieves. He also refuses to look at evidence from sources that he perceives as left-leaning. That person is unhinged.

      • aegisgfx877@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Just a general rule of thumb there little guy, when it comes to anything political if you find the nazis are on your side, you are on the wrong side.

      • AnonTwo@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        They want the bar for the traffic. They can start their own bar but the extreme nature of it deters people from even setting foot.

        They want to sit in places that look neutral or even friendly.

    • SpacemanSpiff@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      True, agreed. I’m only commenting on the idea that these people or groups shouldn’t get free advertising when people find them. These posts that are blasting their way to the top of “hot” just like a trending news article are counter-productive. On the Internet, which is fundamentally always at least partially an uncontrolled environment, it’s better take actions for these things that are as invisible as possible.