Buddy, you misspelled the company you claim to advertise for in your username.

Kagi is an amazing search engine, but their CEO is a textbook techbro, raised a few red flags for me. From “we’re unpolitical” to “why would you need privacy by design, we say we don’t collect data I don’t get it” But still, best search I EVER used.

Einfach die Liste nur provisorisch machen.

Oh I totally get that.

But the way OP puts it just reminds me too much of what the “free speech absolutists” are spouting and we’ve all seen where that leads.

No, the nuance is that I think that in the current state of social media, as shitty as it is, a blanket unbanning of bad words would be a net negative.

I do not think that bad words should be banned generally. In quotes/transcripts etc it should be fine. I know they currently aren’t and I agree that’s a problem. Also, of course, in small, self-moderated communities bad words are fine if everyone there is ok with that.

But OP isn’t arguing for that. They just argued that we should blindly add hyper-violent language (back) to the systems we currently have. And not only regarding transcriptions/etc. And I think that will lead to a way worse outcome that the current status quo.

Again, I do not think bad words in a transcription/quoting/discussing should be banned because that’s ridiculous. But, on large social media platforms, they should stay banned when being directed at individuals, because yes, calling Elon an asshole to his face is carthatic, but you are buying that freedom with the price of bigots calling everyone slurs. And I simply don’t think that’s worth it, nothing more.

The issues we face with capitalized social media can only be solved by forming smaller circles again. Not by adding slurs into the mix and hoping they will only benefit you and won’t make the place a miserable hellhole.

No? Where did I say that? Bad behaviour should be banned, no matter what.

But in the current state (huge scale, algorithm based moderation only) this is not properly enforced already. My problem now is that if hyper violent language no longer gets you banned, bigots will use that and will get away with it too often. I’d rather not be able to call someone an asshole than getting called 50 slurs and then watch the algorithm do nothing about it.

But I am not agruing for corporate sanitization and algorithm-based word filters. I am also with you that we are in a dire need of smaller communities with a human touch. I am merely against anyone who wants to normalize hyperviolent comments. Because introducing this to the current large-scale, algorithm-monitored communities will not fix the above issues, but backfire spectacularly, because it enables bigots.

OP saw all these problems, but chose the wrong solution. We need smaller, closer communities instead.

Fine by me.

To add to my original point: What OP says against corporate sanitization is true (e.g. weid Youtube monetization rules), but it’s also the exact same thing bigots say because they want to call people slurs. And I don’t want to give them what they want.

This is how you get places like 4chan. I’d rather have a place where everyone is nice and bigots get banned than have a “marketplace of ideas” where everyone is an asshole. Really cool that you want your freedom of saying “I want to skin you alive” but what about my freedom of not having to get that said to me?

To my limited knowledge: If it ends in .0 it’s the network identifier. If it ends in .255 it’s the broadcast address.