There is a general tendency on the internet that any forum that promotes free speech and only moderates spam and illegal posts, but does not remove posts based on their content, becomes majority right wing after some time. There are left-wing forums with censorship, and there are right-wing forums with censorship, of course. But if you let people discuss their ideas freely without interference, the mostly tend to become right-wing. It seems that without censorship and content-based moderation artificially steering discussion left-wing ideas cannot exist.

  • thann@gtio.ioM
    1·
    2 years ago

    My point is that there are no bastions of free speech, you just think there are because they host the things you want to hear.

    • larry@gtio.ioOP
      1·
      2 years ago

      That’s a common piece of misinformation that tries to make it seem as though everyone is as biased as those who employ censorship, which is not true. I have been a part of communities with incredible diversity of opinions where the only moderation was removing automated spam and other destructive participants. No, that does not mean censorship, because they never deleted posts because of opinions or facts they presented. It really is possible to have discussion forums with free speech, although many that attempt are relentlessly attacked on all possible fronts until they cave in and start censoring.

      • thann@gtio.ioM
        1·
        2 years ago

        other destructive participants.

        One mans “destructive participant” is another mans truthsayer

        • larry@gtio.ioOP
          1·
          2 years ago

          No, not really, that’s just another lie. There is no “truthsaying” in automated spam advertising herbal viagra, that’s something devoid of content. It’s absurd to claim that constitutes censorship and you’re doing this only to attempt to classify everyone as employing censorship, which is disingenuous of you.

              • mandy@gtio.io
                2·
                2 years ago

                Kiwifarms is a very biased case. It’s based, at the start, about harassing ‘lolcows’ for kicks (usually people with learning disabilities like Chris-Chan). Furthermore, it is often seen as a haven for people who get banned from other more moderate sites.

                Would you agree that this inherently attracts a more edgy and “right-wing” audience?

              • thann@gtio.ioM
                1·
                2 years ago

                from wikipedia:

                Harassment stemming from Kiwi Farms has been implicated in the suicides of three people targeted by users of the site.

                Wow, that’s quite the bastion of free speech. I bet if someone doxxed the owner the thread would get deleted lol

                • larry@gtio.ioOP
                  1·
                  2 years ago

                  The founder of the forum is Joshua Moon, his details are public. Slander on Wikipedia has nothing to do with whether or not it has freedom of speech, which it does, Josh is a free speech fundamentalist. There is no doxxing on the forum, the members republish already publicly available information.

                  They only remove content when absolutely legally required and forced to by law: https://kiwifarms.net/help/removing-content/ The founder went to court with numerous people to defend the right to free speech of members, and has won every time. In advance of your predictable claim that this constitutes censorship, in no way can complying only with the strictest legal demands be possibly construed as such in any meaning of the word. Again, no content is ever deleted for stating opinions or facts of any kind, and the owner of the forum goes to ridiculous lengths to protect that right. You will not find anyone more dedicated to this ideal. This is in stark contrast to forums such as reddit or facebook that employ far reaching and extensive lists of allowed and disallowed content effectively stifling any serious discussion of any topic and allowing only advertiser-friendly content.