Jump to content

ToS update regarding Offensive and bigoted content


Qutenkuddly

Recommended Posts

After some discussion, the following ToS clause has been update from: 

 

On 8/5/2005 at 11:25 AM, Cate Perfect said:

2.3 Offensive and bigoted content
AVEN does not tolerate elitist, racist, queerphobic, or sexist bigotry, as these create an environment that is hostile to the reasonable exchange of views. You may not post hateful, abusive, or disparaging content about people's race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, romantic orientation, age, or mental or physical disability. This includes anything bigoted against 'asexuals', 'sexuals', 'aromantics' or 'romantics' as identifiable categories.
Posting offensive content, or bigoted propaganda, may result in an immediate and permanent ban from the forum. Offences judged less serious by the Admod Team will be dealt with under the Warning system outlined below.

To: (changes emphasized):

 

On 8/5/2005 at 11:25 AM, Cate Perfect said:

2.3 Offensive and bigoted content
AVEN does not tolerate elitist, racist, queerphobic, or sexist bigotry, as these create an environment that is hostile to the reasonable exchange of views. You may not post hateful, abusive, or disparaging content about people's race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, romantic orientation, age, or mental or physical disability. This includes anything bigoted against 'asexuals', 'sexuals', 'aromantics' or 'romantics' as identifiable categories.
Posting offensive content, bigoted propaganda, or ideological support for recognized hate groups, including links to such material, may result in an immediate and permanent ban from the forum. This includes  Offences judged less serious by the Admod Team will be dealt with under the Warning system outlined below.

 

To help clarify this further, here are some example scenarios:

 

  • Posting a link to hateful content (for example, posting a link to a video explaining that anyone who puts pineapple on a pizza is a monster) with the comment "The guy who made this video is a genius!" would be construed as ideological support.

 

  • Posting said video link without any context or explanation would be considered ideological support, as it is serving as propaganda.

 

  • Posting said video link with an argument of why the video's premise is completely false would not be considered as ideological support.

 

  • Explaining that people have the freedom to express how much they hate the idea of putting pineapple on a pizza (arguing 'Freedom of Speech'), would not be construed as ideological support.

 

If you have any further questions or concerns, feel free to post them here or message a member of the Admod team.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about "I wish to live in a world without pineapple on pizza?" I specifically and literally mean pineapple on pizza. This is not a stand-in for other extreme opinions, which are clearly much worse if they wish for a certain type of person or core element of a person's identity to cease existing. Just pineapple on pizza. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck pineapple on pizza and everything it stands for. That one pizza place in Utrecht got it precisely right and the owners should be recognised as national heroes.

 

Is there a list of "recognised hate groups" that we can look at? Because I don't care about SJW topics enough to familiarise myself with every movement that may be recognised as "hate group" in Southern Dumbfuckistan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Homer said:

Is there a list of "recognised hate groups" that we can look at?

If there is, please post here and update as needed.  Thank you.  Seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unleash the Echidnas

Me three. So far as I know "recognized hate group" is pretty much a Southern Poverty Law Center thing for the United States. So I'm wondering how this works for the rest of the world as well as for hate related concerns which don't fit on SPLC's list (MMIWG and the Toronto van attack might be examples to consider). I'm also curious how this policy will function in situations where a primary source would normally be cited as part of an anti-hate discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I'd also like to know what Ultimate Authority I should reference to identify hate groups, and why whoever-they-are is considered qualified and unbiased enough to be the Ultimate Authority.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Qutenkuddly said:

propaganda

isn't propaganda like the stuff they used in the Russian revolution to like gather the russian's attention?

I'm just confused on what you mean by it.

8 hours ago, Qutenkuddly said:

bigoted propaganda

so bigoted propaganda is....????????

 

Thanks if anyonee bothers to explain that

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
11 minutes ago, theV0ID said:

Yeah I'd also like to know what Ultimate Authority I should reference to identify hate groups, and why whoever-they-are is considered qualified and unbiased enough to be the Ultimate Authority.

^^^

Link to post
Share on other sites

@A User Propaganda is a broad term to refer to media or material that skews the truth or spreads outright falsehoods to convince people to support an ideology and/or take certain actions that serve political motives of the group creating the propaganda. I'm not sure if you're asking if it's specifically only referring to the Russian Revolution, or if you're inferring that any use of the term must have communist motives, but it's a far broader meaning word.

 

Bigoted propaganda would be material as described above used to spread opinions that dehumanize people based on categories that are used to group them together based on inherited characteristics OR deeply held values that represent a collective heritage - for example, race, sexual orientation, religion, disability, etc. If the propaganda says that the secret force controlling the media is made up of Jews, that's bigoted propaganda. If the secret force controlling the media is a diverse group made of all sorts of cultural backgrounds, genders, and sexual orientations, then that's just propaganda. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Purple Red Panda

Can I post disparaging content about my own national origins (British)? After all being disparaging about Britain is one of our chief sources of amusement and a fine and noble British tradition, also the UK really is a bit shit and pretending that it isn't serves no useful purpose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mackenzie Holiday

I’m really happy about this ToS update!

 

Though, I have a clarifying question as well... could there be instances of arguing freedom of speech that would be construed as veiled attempts to spread bigoted propaganda? For example, if someone were to repeatedly post similar bigoted propaganda videos with the claim “they have the freedom to say this” without prompting, or if someone responds to political discussions (that aren’t about free speech) with the claim “you have the right to say that about this topic, and this guy has the right to say this about this topic (insert bigoted link)”? On the surface they might make it look like they’re only talking about free speech, and they will never admit otherwise, but in practice, they’re giving their particular bigoted propaganda of choice a spotlight. I’m asking because people in certain hate groups have been getting increasingly more practiced at shielding the spread of their propaganda with discussions of free speech.

 

I hope that question makes sense. Thanks! 😊

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Join usssss. The pineapples sHALl SPreAD! Bath in our holy pineapple-ly-ness.

 

 

In all seriousness, I'm wondering what happened to require this clarification.  It's nice to see strict rules against spreading dickish ideology though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unleash the Echidnas
16 minutes ago, Mackenzie Christmas Day said:

I hope that question makes sense.

It does to me. Freedom of speech is logically distinct from freedom from consequences. There's a long history of social engineering seeking to conflate the two in order to advocate bigoted positions, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So my question is regarding the wording of the rule change.

13 hours ago, Qutenkuddly said:

Posting offensive content, bigoted propaganda, or ideological support for recognized hate groups, including links to such material,

Does this apply to all aforementioned content solely in regards to the groups mentioned in the quote below? Your listing omits some categories, political belief or affiliation being the noticeable one. Would the prohibition on "hateful, abusive, or disparaging content" be applicable to content explicitly targeted towards ,say for example, Republican or Democratic party voters? They would fall into none of the listed categories. That's probably a bad example, but the question stands. Are groups not explicitly mentioned as part of the list exempt from the rule?

AVEN does not tolerate elitist, racist, queerphobic, or sexist bigotry, as these create an environment that is hostile to the reasonable exchange of views. You may not post hateful, abusive, or disparaging content about people's race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, romantic orientation, age, or mental or physical disability. This includes anything bigoted against 'asexuals', 'sexuals', 'aromantics' or 'romantics' as identifiable categories.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Janus the Fox

Listing Hate Groups are a tricky point as lists regardless of the source, may not be sufficient, so it sounds reasonable to have lists associated with countries law.  It's of a common sense not to ideologically support groups known to law enforcement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Qutenkuddly said:

recognized hate groups

Recognized by who?

 

If there are groups that AVEN recognizes as ::hate groups:: please list them.

 

Without a list, ::hate groups:: is an arbitrary notion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Let it Snao said:

@A User Propaganda is a broad term to refer to media or material that skews the truth or spreads outright falsehoods to convince people to support an ideology and/or take certain actions that serve political motives of the group creating the propaganda. I'm not sure if you're asking if it's specifically only referring to the Russian Revolution, or if you're inferring that any use of the term must have communist motives, but it's a far broader meaning word.

 

Bigoted propaganda would be material as described above used to spread opinions that dehumanize people based on categories that are used to group them together based on inherited characteristics OR deeply held values that represent a collective heritage - for example, race, sexual orientation, religion, disability, etc. If the propaganda says that the secret force controlling the media is made up of Jews, that's bigoted propaganda. If the secret force controlling the media is a diverse group made of all sorts of cultural backgrounds, genders, and sexual orientations, then that's just propaganda. 

Given how the "invalidation clause" bullshit came about, I have zero trust in this being implemented in a reasonable manner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Homer said:

Given how the "invalidation clause" bullshit came about, I have zero trust in this being implemented in a reasonable manner.

Look, dude, Snao just tell what word mean; nope take side here.

 

Uhh...by which I mean, my above explanation doesn't really have anything to do with the ToS update. And I think it's one of those issues that probably came up in the backroom because someone made the case that linking to offensive content in an affirming way is not the same as saying it (but I avoid the threads where people do that anyway, so what do I know). The update intends to clarify what I would've already thought was common sense. Sure, that means it can be applied poorly, but...meh, what's really changed? This isn't like rounding up political prisoners here. And as far as I know there is no pro-invalidation lobby that fosters active hate groups against people who use another definition of asexuality, so I doubt this is even relevant to that type of discussion here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Let it Snao said:

what I would've already thought was common sense

So if we are debating here wether ToS 2.3 should go back to original,

 

I agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Let it Snao said:

Look, dude, Snao just tell what word mean; nope take side here.

Look, Snao, Bart Papa just tell what head meat says - none ever said that Snao take side here else some such :) :cake:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no ideological bitch with either the original or the additional clause, mainly because I'm too tired to be ideological tonight.

 

However, this does not make grammatical sense:  "This includes  Offences judged less serious by the Admod Team will be dealt with under the Warning system outlined below."    Could someone futz around with it so that it does make sense?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A User said:

what are you trying to imply with these links to hate group lists and definitions???

Just providing information.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Karst said:

Just providing information.

oh ok

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alaska Native Manitou

I wish my life were so easy that I could pretend not to know what a hate group is or care what's on someone else's pizza.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chocolatastic AroAce
On 12/22/2020 at 7:45 AM, theV0ID said:

Yeah I'd also like to know what Ultimate Authority I should reference to identify hate groups, and why whoever-they-are is considered qualified and unbiased enough to be the Ultimate Authority.

Yeah I'm a little unsure on how this works in practice as well. Cause what one person sees as a "hate group or hate ideology" doesn't necessarily match what someone else views as such. People tend to believe and value different things. Some people love pineapples on pizza and think it is the greatest while others don't. But because there is more people that like pineapples then those who don't, their somehow the right ones?  I guess I'm just wondering how this works in terms of avoiding being bias ourselves with our own idiologys.  Yes absolutely lets not be dick heads and hate each other, but can we do it while not dismissing everything that doesn't fit the majoritys worldview as bigot popergranda?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we just need a "you know what I hate?" thread in the hot box  (if there isn't  one already) and call it a day. people will be offensive.  c'est la vie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2020 at 9:11 AM, Chocolatastic AroAce said:
On 12/22/2020 at 4:45 AM, theV0ID said:

Yeah I'd also like to know what Ultimate Authority I should reference to identify hate groups, and why whoever-they-are is considered qualified and unbiased enough to be the Ultimate Authority.

Yeah I'm a little unsure on how this works in practice as well. Cause what one person sees as a "hate group or hate ideology" doesn't necessarily match what someone else views as such. People tend to believe and value different things. Some people love pineapples on pizza and think it is the greatest while others don't. But because there is more people that like pineapples then those who don't, their somehow the right ones?  I guess I'm just wondering how this works in terms of avoiding being bias ourselves with our own idiologys.  Yes absolutely lets not be dick heads and hate each other, but can we do it while not dismissing everything that doesn't fit the majoritys worldview as bigot popergranda?

In a (coco)nutshell: I agree with the above.

 

Also appreciate Karst posting these lists for us.

On 12/23/2020 at 9:55 AM, Karst said:

They are good for reference when worse comes to worse and we may want to know if anyone else found a certain group offensive, why and to what degree.

 

Yet I cannot look at their websites as Ultimate Authority on hate-groups.  I cannot see their lists as fee of bias. 

 

Besides, if/when a ::hater:: posts: 

On 12/21/2020 at 9:07 PM, Let it Snao said:

"I wish to live in a world without pineapple on pizza?"

::hate-taget:: and/or admod intervene like:

Quote

I like meringue dough pizza abundantly sprinkled with shredded coconut topped with plenty lots of thin fresh-cut pineapple pieces.  If nobody here likes this pizza recipe OK.  Don't force anyone to eat it.  Just wrote my personal preference in pizza.

::hater:: may see the idea of pineapple-on-pizza from a wider enough perspective to snap out of hate.

 

"Hate" issues are ::case-by-case:: situations. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...