Censorship, Free Speech, and Echo Chambers & Civility, Common Decency, and Mutual Respect

[AmandaYVR]

'Moon Gate', an element of Japanese garden. Through this portal is the internet...

I believe the internet should be a free and open space.
I believe in civility, self-control and common decency. I believe when civility break down, chaos will fill its place. I believe this endless tirade between the ideologies of free speech, #snowflakes, trolls, MGTOW, censorship, #echochamber etc. must end. Or, must at least be recognized as the futile battle that it is. These people are not the majority but we must not let them overtake the climate of the internet. It is an organism that needs care, not brazen, unabashed revolt.
I believe judgement is the enemy of peace.
I believe we need to each listen more than we speak.
I believe everyone is making a choice with every comment they write.
I believe anonymity is the death of compassion.
I believe even strangers should listen with a modicum of respect. Shouting does not make a point more right, and it loses the gift of respect.
Words such as "all" or "never" or "always" are a cheap alternative to deeper analysis.
I believe people should think for themselves, not fall victim to groupthink, or grow their tribe in seek of more power. If you forcibly alienate those who are angry, they will look for allies to not be alone.
I believe I need to muster more patience in dealing with these issues and not judge too quickly.
I no longer believe that how someone treats another user is telling the whole story. It is possible there is a history unbeknownst to us.
I believe we cannot allow ourselves to sink into animal-like mentality. We are far more intelligent and evolved, yet we somehow behave even worse, survival and imminent danger not being applicable.
I believe we will stagnate and devolve, if we don't figure this out.
I believe G@G could be better, but it's one of the best chances we've got to have a great, solid, maybe even unified community of diverse thinkers and ideologies... unique, but harmonious.

[Lliam]

Wow, that was a well thought out take, Amanda. It really struck home for me. I couldn't agree more.
When it comes to communication, some people are less eloquent than others.
Even when we express a thought, it should be recognized that it's only a sliver of our thoughts on the subject. It's impossible to write a philosophical book containing all of our thoughts - pros and cons - on a subject. That's where asking questions is valuable.
We can't read metacommunication in print. It's hard to determine the person's tone of voice, to tell if they are smiling, joking, shouting or being sarcastic. That's another reason to ask questions rather than jumping to conclusions and judging people.
Instead of clinging dogmatically to ideologies, we should listen to people and try to understand their reasoning. We might find commonalities and learn something.

My fault is, I can be really mean when I am attacked or judged. I am trying to be aware of that and be more kind. Lashing out is counterproductive.

[EpicDweeb]

I agree whole heartedly. I think overall we must give further thought to our words before we speak them. I think we are far too quick to voice our own opinions on a matter without considering the way we present them or the effect our words may have. It is one thing to speak a harsh truth and another to do so gently. It is one thing to voice a belief or opinion for consideration and it is another to demand a person agree. I think we should be quick to listen and slow to speak. There should be a common sense of decency that tells us not to voice every thought and not to assume we know more than we do.

"Even a fool is deemed wise if he holds his tongue." Proverbs 17:28

[SydneySentinel]

Beautiful thoughts. We can always be better than we are.

[SydneySentinel]

Especially when we're choosing to not be as good as we can be.

[SydneySentinel]

Thanks for the MHO ❤

[betaTester]

If you believe in civility, self-control and common decency, then you should also realize anonymity is the solution to this site's problem. Most of the toxic behavior on this site are due to people growing attached to their identity and title (yup, e fame even on a site like this still gets to people's head, no matter how hilarious that sounds): people who think they are special, people who preach 'negativity free zone' while blocking everyone who doesn't say something they like then start trashtalking them by writing myTakes, people who must have the last word in arguments etc These are all the problems due to too much investment in an online identity, so they feel they need to defend it, when it is taken away they believe they are 'cyber bullied' lol. Think about it, anonymity of everyone solves the 'cyber bulling' problem completely.

I also believe in civility, self-control and common decency, that's why I think everyone should be anonymous with an id number in each thread, so the topic of discussion or the question will be the only focus, posters shall be judged purely by the quality of their posts in that thread, not on their identity or e fame or how much they wasted their life on here :))

[AmandaYVR]

Are you kidding? That is totally faulty reasoning. Anonymity allows people to go no holds barred, balls to the wall. There are (virtually/almost) no consequences or repercussions to their actions (some people believe in karma, and that it will take care of these people - but I do not). In real life (remember that?), this action is countered by either equal aggression, or ostrcization by peers, by everyone, in fact. Only family and some very close inner circle people will put up with that. Relationships end all the time over situations such as you describe.

We are all already anonymous. We really don't need MORE anonymity. The anon option is used for very sensitive subjects (a rape victim talking about her story, looking for advice, as an extreme example). But anonymity is abused to the fullest extent online. Opinions are rampant. (You know the joke - 'opinions are like assholes - everyone's got one'.) Things are getting ugly. Very ugly. And I don't see it turning around anytime soon. Unless people collectively and consciously decide to make a change. But there's very little motivation to do so, is there? But that is the difference between macro and micro thinking. You may be defending the individual's right to free speech, but I care more about the collective future ramifications if these types of behaviours go unchecked.

cont'd...

[AmandaYVR]

That's the first I've heard of e-fame, but ok, I kind of like it. Yes, the more 'social currency' some people gain in the ether, sometimes the more they crave it. (What the hell is an 'Insta Star', really.) Are you implying that I am one of those people? Do you know how many offers I've received to buy followers in my real life business? A lot. And I will never, ever do that. I didn't make myself an Influencer by concsciously deciding to do anything. I actually have quite loathed social media. But then I found this place, and I prefer this to all other social sites. Why? All this is, is opinions. No self-promotion. If something I write gets featured... again, that's them, not me deciding. I am just doing my thing. I just want to having interesting discussions with interesting and intelligent and witty people. And however the most efficient and expedient way to do that is, that is what I want. And it has worked for me. I found a bunch, and that's why I'm here. Why are you here? Your numbers are very low for being a level 7 (I am also level 7). So from that I can deduce that you and I are very different people. Yes, there's a popularity element to it. But you cannot argue the democracy of this. No one is being forced to do anything. Everyone chooses everything. You and me, included.
And by the way, I know of one Influencer on here who is just the person you describe, a points junkie. So there must be more than 'one', right? But I'm not interested in talking about them.

cont'd...

[AmandaYVR]

So yeah, I strongly disagree with your premise that "most of the toxiic behavior... is due to people growing attached to their title and identity." Nope, not buying it. The majority are not Influencers, do not have 'titles', as you say, such as Editor or Moderator, and there are many people who cause major discord here, loudly and obstinantly stating/i. e. shouting their opinions. Or worse, removing others' opinions on a regular basis.
I could argue that Moderators deserve their title because they have proven to the site admins that they have shown good judgement in reporting inappropriate content. And Editors have earned their title by writing a lot of successful MyTake opinions. But I am not here to defend social media, or the structures that have been created for it. That's not my area of interest.

And switching to I. D. numbers for everyone is the worst idea I've hear in a long time. You want us to all by like prison inmates? We are all individuals, and there is nothing wrong with being recognized as that. We are not criminals who have to pay for our crimes or past sins. We each have a voice here, and our identities help others to know who we are. Perhaps 'help' is not the right word, but I personally do care about who the people are, as a whole. I would not be interested in seeing a neverending sea of comments that were made anonymously and never connected together. And yeah, if you say something that I or others think is totally shit, reap the consequences - which are probably just that we won't engage with that person. So what? That's free choice, that's real life, man. If you think you're here to vent and convert us, well you're wrong. This ain't no church choir you're preaching to.

[betaTester]

1. One thing I notice from this site is that the more stupid people tend to be more aggressive in criticizing without understanding, 'faulty reasoning' lol you don't seem to realize that if you are anonymous, the mean things other anonymous says about you affects you very little, because you have no online identity, remember? Look at the big picture, if everyone is anonymous, all the insults no matter how 'balls to the wall' become impersonal :) while the intelligent replies are still intelligent. People who like to insult will soon find something else to say. You are appealing to the scenario that people choose to be bad, so they need a username to keep themselves in check. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? You seem to think when people become anonymous they turn into terrible human beings, while if they have a username and a profile picture the same people suddenly say nice things. But if you think more about it, do you prefer your site to be full of rude people who pretend to be nice because they have an online persona?

2. I thought this is obvious, but by `title`, I mean the 'username', everyone here has a username, idc what `influencer` is, seems like a spelling mistake 😂. All people who remove replies, all people who get upset over arguments on here care about how they look to others, they want to have the last word in arguments, they don't want to look bad. That's toxic. Now you talk about 'those who sow discords', think about what happens when everyone is anonymous, there's simply no feud if there is no identity outside of the discussion. It is very ironic for someone to believe they have 'macro thinking' and can't see the bigger picture of a hypothetical situation.

[betaTester]

3. Most things people write on here *are* about self-promotion, i. e. to express themselves in the best light possible. Most of the time people want to look smart, or they write with intention to impress the opposite sex. If you think people sign up for a site called girls ask guys dot com for intelligent debate about anything, you're pretentious and stupid.

4. So you seem to go off on a lot of tangents about prison, karma, prisoners, the church etc. I hope you understand that if you're capable of formulating an intelligent argument, you don't need to appeal to so many words that are irrelevant to this topic. I will try to make it easier to understand:
If the topic of discussion is important, then the identity of the poster or their post history isn't. You are recognized as an individual through your id number when you enter each discussion, simply to keep track of what different posters say in that discussion, that is enough to have an intelligent discussion. Posts can still be removed as usual if they violate the guidelines. So accountability is still there, feuds between users is no longer possible :))

by the way congrats for the 'numbers', you're almost as popular and helpful as some kid who make video games tutorials on youtube lol I have been here for a lot longer than you, I simply don't participate as frequently because *gasp* I'm actually busy real life. If you ever reply, please address point 1, 2, 3, 4 as I have attempted to turn this into an intelligent discussion. Usually I refrain from responding to people like you, but seeing you are really passionate about this site, I make an exception.

[AmandaYVR]

You seem pissed at me. What's your endgame here? You want to fight? I don't want to fight.

[betaTester]

Well, I'm not pissed at you anymore. Also in my first reply I was clearly not talking about you, I was talking about a user on here who used the term 'negativity free zone' after writing long articles telling people if they got blocked by her then they have a list of character defects. Apparently she received a warning and got her account frozen, and with a fragile ego she decided to never come back here :))

[AmandaYVR]

I suspected this as one of the options as to what you were getting at, however it was not at all clear, and so speaking so broadly and abstractly, I proceeded on some wrong assumptions. Communication is key. Anyone who thinks it's not absolutely crucial in life, is oversimplifying.
I attempted to pm you but you require a follow first, so I sent a follow request to you and am awaiting reply. I think our conversation would be better continued where we can be live and not run into more misundertandings. (If you want to continue. If not, that's fine too.)

[Bluemax]

I'm afraid without anonymity I couldn't be on this site. I am, or was, a credentialed teacher who interacted with minors on a daily basis. This site often talks about sexually explicit topics, sometimes I engage in those conversations. And this site has minors on it. It could go very bad for me if my work ever found out I engaged in such conversations with minors. Hence I am anonymous on here.

I also support the free exchange of ideas, which is why I am not fond of the block feature except blocking personal messages. I also don't lose sleep that GAG has the feature.

[AmandaYVR]

You don't feel that your u/n hides you enough... you need to answer and ask certain questions more anonymously? While unfortunate, I can understand that, separating the sex stuff. Though I hope you do not over-use the anon feature, when not necessary.

The more I think about all this, the more I can see the benefits in showing all comments. It is certainly a complex formula of pluses and minuses, pros and cons, but in the end, I think I'm concluding that it is overall better for all to see. It is not the easier or more peaceful or more enjoyable situation, by any means. But, for one, it can create a culture which is more self-policing. We're not going to ever really control the hate, but we do all have the power to disengage with those who are obstinantly and completely unreasonable. Another user argued here that anonymity creates *less* staunch defenciveness, but I don't agree. Repuation or not, I believe in consequences for one's choices. Still, it is an imperfect situation with no perfect solutions.

[Bluemax]

I have never used the anonymous feature on GAG.

To be clear, by being anonymous on GAG, in my case I'm referring to the fact that I have never posted a picture of myself. I have never used my real name.

Even still, I generally never respond to minor's questions about sex on GAG for the aforementioned reasons.

I'm sorry, but what is "u/n?"

[AmandaYVR]

Username.
This is another misunderstanding based on word usage. The site has an anon feature so I presumed you meant that, not that almost all identities on the web are anon (except for Facebook.)

[Bluemax]

Understood.

Ideally, what would you like to see happen with the anonymous feature? Pretend you're Queen of Gag. As Louis XIV said "I am the state," you can now say, "I am Gag." What would you do with the anonymous feature?

[AmandaYVR]

Ay yay yay, Blue. How am I to answer this? I am leading up to this, slowly, but not quite there yet. This is like asking me, 'what is everything you have learned and concluded about the site in these 70 days since you've been here?' I'm still working this all out.

* I believe the site needs an anon feature.
* I believe that users should have the right to use anon when they choose, but the rest of us should, in our minds, devalue their opinions and not weight them as much.
* @loveslongnails suggestion continues to stand out and be memorable to me: ""if you go anonymous as a RESPONDENT, you lose all rights". Anonymous respondents should not be able block anyone's reply to their post." I would probably enact this.

The biggest problem is how can the site designers fix the problem of a user making a comment (called a 'Reply', officially speaking), and then blocking those around them (or more specifically, the originator of the post/question/or comment) in order to shut down the conversation, and have the last word? Technically, how is this best achieved/fixed? Because this is effectively like doing a 'drive by shooting' and it is unjust. And cowardly. And I admit to having done this myself at times, when I was very angry at a person I felt was unfailingly obstinant, over-the-top rude, or completely unreasonable (I have not done it for reasonably written, though opposing, views. It's the attitude and manner that matter to me.) But I haven't done it since my deep dive into all this. Now I want to say that I am well aware that I'm not perfect and I am changing some of my thinking on this, about censorship, etc.
cont'd...

[AmandaYVR]

But I will never believe that we citizens of the world should have to withstand any and all opinions, no matter their false claims of accuracy. And similarly, personal attacks, racist/sexist/homophobic/political/etc. etc. slurs. The internet is a new entity. A worse version of humanity. A troll haven. There needs to be repercussions to this (and there are no repercussions whatsoever when that person is anon and commenting anywhere but outside your own question or MyTake). Yet if we block and remove and hide all that we disagree with, we will solve very little (except our temporary sanity and peace). In the long run, the behaviour then continues. So I am beginning to conclude that what we need is (a certain amount of) transparency - as in usernames and avatars are sufficient... not complete opaqueness (anon users with only an age range) with all rights intact. But people like yourself (and sometimes myself on sex questions, for instance) want, and feel you need this as an option. This anonymity encourages users to share preferences and sometimes fascinating stories that they definitely would otherwise not share. This is one of the reasons we all like this site - the confessions. So maybe the compromise is it (fully anon) is available, but it is somehow less full featured. (As in loveslongnails's suggestion.)

What I'm certain of is they need to make it that no user can EVER block one from responding to any and all comments on their own question or MyTake. You chose the topic, and you have every right to explore and defend it to the fullest. If I could change one thing right now with the snap of my fingers, it would be this.
cont'd...

[AmandaYVR]

I also have huge misgivings about the removal of any comments. Certain people have been appointed as Moderators, and my impression (from speaking to a couple) is that they do take this responsibility seriously, and are not over-zealous (though I could be mistaken.) Any person who abuses the 'I don't want to see this' option/feature, needs to be reprimanded. The site takes this seriously. If you feel this has happened to you (and of you) unjustly, let them know. State your case.
Removing comments means that that person is silenced, which may be appropriate, however it also means that others do not get to see that person for who they are. What I would prefer is no removals, and those types of people to get socially 'iced out' by the crowd.

I think I would also expose the identities of people who downvote. They are currently being hidden to 'keep the peace', I'm sure. The site wants more users, and more harmony and this, in general, produces that. If the troll count gets too high, they'll force off the 'good' people who don't want to fight and cannot withstand the barrage of unfair attacks to their beliefs. And it creates a massive, unending, revolving door of users. I think that's pretty much what we have on the female side right now.
cont'd...

[AmandaYVR]

But 'user retention' is where the money's at, in large part what the ad revenue is based on, so it's a very very important number - 'active users.' Yet the political activist/troll/sexter-only-focused-type people on here want something very different - they want to voice their opinions without restraints or limitations. I am not in favour of that. I think that situation will hurt the site, and hurt society, in the long run. So if the site doesn't want to take the huge responsibility of being the morality police (who would want that role? Not that many), then keeping things relatively open, so that we, the users, can see all activity... we will then decide who we 'play' (interact) with. If we can withstand these comments/attacks/troll-y users, hold our ground but not necessarily engage fully, not answer their own questions and posts, then maybe it can be a self-policing, crowd-sourcing type of place. Though I worry that that's what it is now, and it's not working out that well.

See, all that, and I didn't even address blocking.

Sorry this is so long-winded. I couldn't figure out how to write it any shorter, and as I said, I'm still working it out in my mind. If it was easy or straight-forward, it would have been done already. But it's like the judicial court system - 'it's not perfect, but it's the best system we've got right now.'

[Bluemax]

Very interesting.

I believe if I were King of Gag, I would get rid of the blocking feature, though I might consider a mute conversation feature.

"But I will never believe that we citizens of the world should have to withstand any and all opinions..."

That is probably an unbridgeable point of disagreement between us. I believe that the moment you step out the door (or log onto the internet), you are going to have to withstand any and all opinions... and it should be that way. No opinion, no matter how hateful, disagreeable, even evil, should be gagged. Ever. (actions are a different story) I don't care how irritating it is. I don't care how much it triggers a person. I don't care how homo/xeno/ethnophobic it is. I don't care how racist it is. I don't care how much it personally attacks anyone. I don't care how it politically attacks anyone. I don't think silencing someone is ever appropriate. EVER. Not in public. If you're triggered, upset, angry, sad about opinions, it's on YOU to grow thicker skin, sharpen your meathooks, and tear into them with your OWN opinions and debates.

I don't care if it's Satan himself, I would absolutely positively detest everything he says, while absolutely positively defending his right to say them (again, actions are another story).

[Bluemax]

Here's why.

I might be wrong. And so might you. And so might anyone else who finds an opinion abhorrent. That's right. What I consider sexist, racist, homophobic, or whatever might not be considered such by other people. Furthermore, there might actually be something wise and intelligent buried within even what i consider the most despicable opinion.

And who will be the judge of what is racist? What is homophobic? What is sexist? I say let ALL people be the judge, which means everyone is going to have to be able to read it to themselves.

I am NOT the ultimate judge on what is racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, etc. AND NEITHER ARE YOU NOR ANYONE ELSE. I can be wrong... and so can you and anyone reading this.

History is littered with great ideas that were once considered abhorrent. And even great people, with otherwise great ideas, can occasionally have abhorrent ones (Gandhi was by 21st century standards quite racist)

I do not value harmony over the free exchange of ideas. I say let no opinion, no matter how awful you or I or ANYONE thinks it is, be blocked on any public forum. Ever. The same I feel goes for anti-hate speech legislation (which I think stinks). You don't like it? Ignore it, or fight it. But don't remove or block any opinion ever.

[AmandaYVR]

You are misrepresenting that these ‘Isms’ are opinions. They are not. Words have definitions for a reason. So that language can be used specifically and thoughtfully to convey our precise thoughts and ideas. People all too often attempt to change the meanings of words. I respect language and use it consciously and I expect others to do the same.

The other issue I have is behaviour on the internet is much much worse than IRL. In all other aspects of society we do not have to listen to everyone. People do not tolerate this IRL. Yes, we fundamentally disagree.

[Bluemax]

I'm not misrepresenting isms as opinions. I never said any isms. Please go back and reread where I used the terms "racism" or "sexism" or for that matter "homophobia" or "xenophobia." Take your time...

Can't find it? That's because I never used any "isms."

I was careful to use the words, racist, sexist (not, racism or sexism). Racist and sexist are adjectives and they can be used perfectly well to describe opinions.

By the way, YOU didn't even use "isms." You said, "But I will never believe that we citizens of the world should have to withstand any and all opinions, no matter their false claims of accuracy. And similarly, personal attacks, racist/sexist/homophobic/political/etc. etc. slurs."

The terms you used, racist (not racism), sexist (not sexism), homophobic (not homophobia) are all perfectly good adjectives which you used to talk about opinions.

[Bluemax]

"People all too often attempt to change the meanings of words" Agreed, but in this case you changed the words themselves from "icsts" (which I used and you initially used) to "isms" (which I never used and neither did you initially)

Now I asked a very direct question which I never received an answer. Who will be the judge of what is racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or xenophobic? What do you propose should be done with racist/sexist/homophobic/xenophobic opinions? Gag the person? Fine the person?

By the way, I disagree that even racism, or sexism, or homophobia isn't a matter of opinion. I here people disagree about what constitutes racism/sexism, homophobia, etc. all the time.

[Malik00]

The said reality is that this isn't going to end until enough people realize how one side simply wants power and control and don't really care about practicing what they preach.

[sawno]

That has always been the case from the dawn of time, it is indeed time people put a stop to it by spreading awareness and make sure the power lies in the hand of the majority not the few.

[NerdInDenial]

I love how you don't mention feminists...

[AmandaYVR]

Is that sarcasm?

[NerdInDenial]

No, but this would be:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QyYaPWasos

[Bluemax]

Hilarious video

[N192K001]

Seconding that!

[wankiam]

A question for fellow moderators? ↗

[wankiam]

yeah i wish the world was perfect too

[Craftsman]

Very well said!

[JackSmy]

Very well said.

[Anpu23]

Well said.

[COMMODOREII]

Woa man. So cool.