Apparently there’s an issue with some instances banning users for criticizing authoritarian governments. Is lemmy.world a safe place to criticize governments?
Apparently there’s an issue with some instances banning users for criticizing authoritarian governments. Is lemmy.world a safe place to criticize governments?
Seeing as having the ability to criticize gov’ts is a fundamental part of democracy I fail to see why any social media site would think banning it should be best-practice.
That said I do take issue with some posters who seem to rant on a specific target without any sort of evidentiary data. The slide into “I don’t need proof to back my opinion” is a prolific and dangerous thing these days.
There are a few assumptions here. One: Criticism (in the context you mention) implies a desire to see the object of discussion improved rather than destroyed. Two: Criticism of “governments in general” rather than specifically one’s own government is vital to democracy. Three: That moderation is being done based around whether something is criticism or not rather than it being backed by evidence or not.
As applied to our situation, all of these are overwhelmingly false and one need only look at this thread to understand that.
Its always difficult separating held beliefs from personal or social identity. Evidence for or against something is rarely enough to get someone who has an identity tied to a belief to change thier opinions or not react out of a fight or flight response.
I think setting and enforcing boundaries regularly while not ostracizing or demonizing people is a better way to approach it. Its hard, takes time, and isn’t guaranteed to work; but it comes from a place of tolerance and acceptance rather than condemnation.
I agree wholeheartedly that letting rants go on unchallenged is a big issue, it provides a rallying point for others with similar beliefs and pushes the boundary back away from accountability and discussion and towards emotional and fear based outbursts. Do you think there is room for healthy discussion here on the fediverse and specifically in this instance?
Yes. But even just looking through this thread it seems the problems follow the same patterns anyway.
I am an ally of all persecuted groups and I ask for evidence from those who choose to state their opinions. If none is willingly provided I block them. This, to me, is the only way social media can be fairly run. Anything more than that becomes what twatter, f b and reditt have become.
Exceptions to the above will always have to be made tho, ie: direct threats, doxxing, etc. … what mods are for.
That is definitely one of the issues with any social platform or outlet. There is always the push to form in and out groups based on unifying characteristics, behaviors, social status, etc. I do think a major thing that is missed is calling out behaviors and beliefs that are not supported by facts; e.g. giving the same weight of truth or spotlight to outlandish conspiracy theories vs. scientifically backed data (climate change is a good example)
Hopefully this place can find a happy medium that invites good faith discussion instead of bad faith actors.