111
submitted 1 year ago by alyaza@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

The #StopDeletingUs campaign is resisting a mass wave of deletions of sex positive accounts and arguing for fairer moderation of sexual content online.

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Gaywallet@beehaw.org 23 points 1 year ago

I love that they have a 'don't be a dick' policy, it sounds like there's quite a few spaces returning to a set of simple rules to avoid people trying to skirt the rules and make places intolerable.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 year ago

It tough right? You get rules lawyers if they're complex and specific, but really general rules tend to get abused just as hard, often by the very people who help build a community. Funny enough social media platforms themselves have been a good example recently.

It sounds like their approach works for them though, so that's good.

[-] Gaywallet@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

really general rules tend to get abused just as hard, often by the very people who help build a community

I'm not sure I agree with this as a general statement. People are often wary of interpretable rules, because it invites personal bias, but strong systems to counter/offset such bias such as proper training and group decisions easily fix this.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago

That is very much not my lived experience, but I obviously can't transfer it to you. I guess I could make a parallel with the concept of "rule of law" in politics - countries that don't have it and leave interpretation of justice up to the authorities inevitably become really corrupt.

[-] Gaywallet@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

Yes but that's different from having a system which enshrines interpretability in their law tactfully. Some countries use panels of judges to deliver decisions and have law which is much more interpretable than places which are more letter of the law focused. You're talking about combining judicial and executive functions which has a whole different set of issues.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If we're debating, isn't the distinction a form of precision rulemaking? I've always thought of judicial vs. executive as a form of constitutional structure personally.

Yes but that’s different from having a system which enshrines interpretability in their law tactfully.

Assuming you mean inquisitorial systems (maybe you don't, please fill me in if I'm wrong), they still have pretty extensive laws. Just GDPR has 99 articles, for example.

[-] elfpie@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

The reason behind the rules might help with that. Don't be a dick and be nice are more about being respectful and understanding than following etiquette. From my point of view at least. The specific way you act is not a problem until it's related to another person.

What I mean is that the way people perceive you is the important part. If someone accuses you of being a dick and you disagree, don't defend your words, explain your attitude. At the same time, don't go around accusing people of beings dicks and try to see if it's not just miscommunication.

The letter of the law entitle people to not care for any harm they cause if it's in their rights. Then there are the people that realize pain is what the law tries to avoid and act to correct themselves without the need of being guilty.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

Don’t be a dick and be nice are more about being respectful and understanding than following etiquette.

I personally know people that would argue etiquette is a form of kindness. They unironically think there's a connection between where the spoon goes and murder. This is of course not true, but the ability to transcend your own cultural context and look at humanity as a whole is surprisingly rare.

If we could all do that, then maybe specific rules would always be unnecessary. But again, that's not my lived experience.

[-] Letstakealook@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago

This is a nonsensical argument. If I were running a website, I would also ban any account selling sex. The amount of legal exposure you'd face regarding human trafficking is too great. I'm not going to spend resources trying to sift through these accounts so some randos can profit, especially when accounts tied to trafficking would still be missed. I'm not pro-corporations, this just makes practical sense.

[-] SemioticStandard@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago

I agree with this. I don’t have a problem with porn, but allowing it on your platform instantiates one HELL of a burden on you.

Let them go to places dedicated to it, like PornHub. PH now has verification requirements, I believe, to protect people. I can’t be bothered to find the article right now, but in the last few weeks I recall reading something about a ton of child porn being traded on Facebook.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
111 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37569 readers
580 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS