Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦 (rysiek@mstdn.social)'s status on Wednesday, 08-Jan-2025 09:12:11 JST Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦

   strong "we applaud our dear landlord for setting our building on fire, for the heating had been broken for months and it's been pretty cold indeed; we will be watching closely if anyone gets hurt" vibes
   https://mastodon.social/@eff/113789440544631242

   • Embed this notice
     Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦 (rysiek@mstdn.social)'s status on Thursday, 09-Jan-2025 00:46:13 JST Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦

     in reply to

     • Radek Czajka

     @rcz well:

     > Update: After this blog post was written, we learned Meta revised its public "Hateful Conduct" policy in ways EFF finds concerning. We are analyzing these changes, which this blog post does not address.

   • Embed this notice
     Radek Czajka (rcz@101010.pl)'s status on Thursday, 09-Jan-2025 00:46:15 JST Radek Czajka

     in reply to

     @rysiek
     EFF seems to be mostly correct here. This does seem to be a step towards less arbitrary corporate censorship masquerading as responsibility, and more transparency. I'm willing to have my mind changed, but really nothing seems to be set on fire here.

     It is slightly weird that they're dancing between applauding “fixing over-censorship” to allow more political speech, and then adding this note about “concerning” changes in the Hateful Conduct policy, where bulk of the changes seem to be about just that: allowing more political speech (particularly and explicitly in the area of sex and gender). EFF does not specify what they mean by this concern, though, and I could also point to a few specific places in the revised policy where I think the line around insulting language is set in a wrong place, so I'm not really passing judgement on that.

     And it's not like I agree with EFF on everything. They just seem to be mostly correct in this instance.

   • Embed this notice
     Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦 (rysiek@mstdn.social)'s status on Friday, 10-Jan-2025 07:45:22 JST Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦

     in reply to

     • Radek Czajka

     @rcz and there it is:
     https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/metas-new-content-policy-will-harm-vulnerable-users-if-it-really-valued-free

     > rather than addressing those historically over-moderated subjects, Meta was taking the opposite tack and —as reported by the Independent—was making targeted changes to its hateful conduct policy that would allow dehumanizing statements to be made about certain vulnerable groups.

     This makes way more sense to me.

     Yuchen Pei repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Radek Czajka (rcz@101010.pl)'s status on Friday, 10-Jan-2025 07:45:23 JST Radek Czajka

     in reply to

     @rysiek
     Yep, that's the note I was referring to.

   • Embed this notice
     Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦 (rysiek@mstdn.social)'s status on Friday, 10-Jan-2025 19:39:43 JST Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦

     in reply to

     • Radek Czajka

     @rcz well, I am at least glad you're so clear about your take on this.

     I am not going to go into a long debate on this, I don't think it's worth our time.

     I will say, because it needs to be said, that Trans rights are human rights. :transgender:

     I will also say that "the bathroom issue" has better solutions than what is demanded by transphobes (lit. "those who fear Trans"):
     https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/where-do-we-go-from-here/

     Finally, I will say that Meta's policy changes will kill people, including Trans people.

   • Embed this notice
     Radek Czajka (rcz@101010.pl)'s status on Friday, 10-Jan-2025 19:39:44 JST Radek Czajka

     in reply to

     @rysiek
     Ah.

     So EFF stands for free expression and freedom of political speech, as long as it is correct speech with which they agree. It'd be good if Meta allowed more “sex worker advocacy groups, LGBTQ+ advocates, Palestine advocates”, but it becomes “hateful content” once they allow “advocating gender-based exclusions”. So women (a word which doesn't appear once in this article discussing various vulnerable groups) advocating for single-sex sports and spaces is too much for EFF's conception of free expression.

     This is just so disingenuous.

     I think there are things to complain about in the Meta's new policy. I don't see any reason to allow “insulting language in the context of discussing political or religious topics, such as when discussing transgender rights, immigration, or homosexuality” — I'm very much against that, I think insulting language harms freedom of expression, and I think the two of us have shown that discussion of such topics is very much possible without resorting to insulting language and better for it. I also see no reason to allow “allegations of mental illness” in these context, where it's obviously used to stigmatize.

     But EFF goes much further. In EFF's view, the discussions we've been having here shouldn't have taken place at all, in any form.

     This is bigotry on EFF's part, this assumption that positions which they do not share can be defined as “hate” and shouldn't be ever allowed to be uttered.

     Much freedom of expression.

     Once they put it like this — that there should be more LGBTQ+ advocates, but single-sex spaces/sports advocates shouldn't even be allowed to speak — one has to ask questions. They say: more sex worker advocates — should then Nordic model advocates be allowed to speak, or not? They say: more Palestine advocates — should then Zionists be allowed to speak, or not?

     This is very thinly-veiled bigotry, plain and simple. They don't want “more political speech”. They want more of their political tribe's speech and no questioning it, because questioning is “hate”.

     Yuchen Pei likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Radek Czajka (rcz@101010.pl)'s status on Friday, 10-Jan-2025 20:29:14 JST Radek Czajka

     in reply to

     @rysiek
     Yes, I am very clear that political discussion around sex-based spaces, sports etc., including advocates for such spaces, should definitely be allowed as political speech — whether you agree with these advocates or not.

     EFF is very clear that these voices shouldn't be allowed. I take it that you agree with EFF's position here, which is for not allowing such voices.

     I do respect the belief there are “better solutions” for specific issues and that these advocates are incorrect. You might be correct on this. As you say, we don't have to into a long debate. People can disagree.

     I do not respect the attempts to silence such disagreement.

     BTW, this stance would seem to mean that even just saying that yesterday's federal court decision was correct (https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/TennesseeAppellateOpinion.pdf) would seem to cross such narrowly defined line of acceptable speech, as it involves arguments for sex-based spaces. This is a very weird understanding of “freedom of expression”. EFF should just ditch this term if this is their stance on it.

     Yuchen Pei likes this.