Squabbles, another recent reddit alternative, seems to be taking the doomed "free speech" path

I think it is a dog whistle , here in India there are people who openly talk of genocide , homophobia and what not and call it their right to speech and expression !

The "funny" thing is that the moment those people have power they don't have a problem going against free speech (see having books banned (in the US) or trying to stop people from voicing their opinion (Meloni in Italy))
It's all just exploiting the tolerance of the system in order to make it less tolerant That's why completely unchecked free speech is a bad idea as it will eventually lead in its complete demise
I mean that is literally what a right to free speech means, so they're not wrong.
- That way yall can let nazi shit going and call it freedom of speech , murder is also freedom of expression in a way then ?
  
  No, not at all. Murder is an action that is illegal. Saying something isn't, no matter how much you disagree with it. I don't like people saying racist stuff, but I'm certainly not of the belief that they shouldn't be allowed to say it.
  
  Now imagine people holding hate speech conferences where they gather and talk about cleaning the population (a dogwhistle to genocide) I wonder if that is ok ! And the riots that happen coz of the radicalised masses ?
  
  And the riots that happen coz of the radicalised masses ?
  Aren't these called "mostly peaceful protests" now? Or is that only when it's your "side" that's doing the rioting?

is there ANY self-described “bastion of free speech on the internet” that is not a cesspool full of awful people? Just one?

No, because awful people congregate wherever they are tolerated.

is there ANY self-described “bastion of free speech on the internet” that is not a cesspool full of awful people

When you have a "free speech" policy, you attract principled free-speech advocates who want to discuss issues rather than shouting down unpopular opinions, a few people who are well-behaved and intelligent but write about ideas that the majority may find offensive or horrifying, and a whole bunch of people who got banned everywhere else for being rude and disruptive.

The best-moderated such place that I've seen had a policy requiring politeness and high-effort posts, which kept out the third group.

The second group can be tough to tolerate. Sometimes they're interesting, sometimes they're a Holocaust denier who cites references, and you look up those references and they appear to be real papers written by real academics, and you know this is all wrong but you're not a historian and even if you were you don't have time to address every issue in this guy's entire life's work and you just wish the topic never came up. But you can't keep out the second group unless you compromise your principles as a member of the first group.

- Yes, that's exactly what it means. Often, participating is very unpleasant. (I had to leave the Holocaust denial discussion - that one was too personal for me.) And I still think we ought to respect places where people do get to talk like that.
  There is good and bad, and good people can't assume they'll always be able to fight harder or yell louder. On the contrary, bad people tend to be better at fighting and at yelling. So if good people fight and yell, they give up the long-term advantages that they may have. Those advantages are that appeals to our common humanity sometimes work, and that peaceful coexistence makes everyone safer and wealthier. But to have these advantages, you need to be willing to tolerate people you hate and hear them out. After all, that's what you want the other side to do.
  (Sometimes that doesn't work and you do have to fight, but if you're in that position then you're already competing on the enemy's terms. The Allies didn't win World War II because they were the good guys. They won because they had more guns, and next time the bad guys may have more guns.)
  
  Who gets to decide what thoughts, beliefs, and groups are allowed to be tolerated?
  Is there a quantifiable threshold for what is and what is not tolerable?
  Does that threshold change over time?
  
  I don't understand how one can advocate for censorship, yet be incapable of defining what speech should be restricted.
  I suppose it makes sense for somebody unable to express their belief system to also be unable to consider more than one viewpoint.
  
  I don’t understand how one can advocate for censorship, yet be incapable of defining what speech should be restricted.
  I feel like Sarah defined pretty thoroughly the type of speech that should be restricted when she said "If you are advocating for the literal eradication of people because they are part of your “out group”, then into the bin with you.".
  That feels like a line that we should all be able to agree upon, and yet there are still many who bafflingly say that we should respect Nazi's ability to spout Nazi propaganda and recruit online.
  You're 100% right that the exact threshold at which speech verges from the "unpleasant but tolerable" to the "dangerous and requiring censorship" is fuzzy and subjective. But I think it's entirely safe to say that when what you're discussing is the eradication of groups or even "just" individuals, you're on the wrong side of that threshold, plain and simple.
  We can talk about where exactly that line falls relative to other issues, but that's always going to vary from person to person in the fine details, but anyone who thinks that literal Nazis should have a safe space to discuss actual Nazi propaganda frankly isn't someone whose opinion I'm going to take seriously, in the same way I wouldn't take seriously someone who argues the Earth is flat (though - being harmless - I'd certainly support their ability to talk about Flat Earth online without censorship).
  
  Thank you for your thought out and well written response. You bring up important points to consider.
  To be honest, I don't have any answers to where the limit of tolerable speech should be that aren't arbitrary or contradictory. There's a lot of nuance in this topic that I feel gets lost in most discussions.
  For example, in a vacuum I agree that Nazi propaganda should not be tolerated or protected speech. Especially clear and immediate advocation for the physical harm of people. But on the other hand, there have been times in history where advocating for violence has resulted in overall positive social change (such as the American and Haitian revolutions). Does the distinction of tolerability get drawn at advocating for the violent extermination of a political regime vs a group of people? How do you make a distinction between the two that is satisfactory for any situation, past, present, and future?
  If you take Nazi propaganda in insolation I think every reasonable person would support banning it (including myself). With the advantage of hindsight I think there are lots of topics/beliefs where that would be reasonable and appropriate. Where it gets concerning is making rules that stop intolerable speech now, yet won't squash positive (but subversive) new ideas that aren't part of the social conciousness yet. If history is any indicator we all have beliefs that will be considered intolerable in the future. Do you have to draw that line on a case by case basis? And if so, who should have the authority to do that?
  Maybe I'm being unintentionally obtuse, but if there can't be rules made that are equally valid in hindsight and future unknown situations, it's better to err on the side of unrestricted speech. I don't want to unintentionally prevent future posivitve changes out of fear of Nazis and other hate-groups.
  
  That feels like a line that we should all be able to agree upon, and yet there are still many who bafflingly say that we should respect Nazi’s ability to spout Nazi propaganda and recruit online.
  As long as you have the ability to NOT interact with them, via blocking or simply ignoring them, what's the problem?
  But I think it’s entirely safe to say that when what you’re discussing is the eradication of groups or even “just” individuals, you’re on the wrong side of that threshold, plain and simple.
  And here is a big problem - currently any and all questioning of trans and gender ideology is shouted down as "transphobic" and "wanting to eradicate trans people" by the far left. Should that all be banned? Are we essentially just going "everything the far left say is the truth so everything else is banned"?
  Just because one group kick up a stink and say that someone else is calling for their genocide, when they're clearly not, it doesn't mean that you should ban that entire group.
  
  As long as you have the ability to NOT interact with them, via blocking or simply ignoring them, what’s the problem?
  Because it lets people advocating genocide further their agenda of actual genocide? There's a saying in germany "If 10 people sit at a table, and they allow a Nazi to join them, you have 11 Nazis at the table". Making room for genocidal rhetoric is supporting that genocidal rhetoric. We're not talking about "bad opinions" here, we're talking about actual, literal genocide.
  And here is a big problem - currently any and all questioning of trans and gender ideology is shouted down as “transphobic” and “wanting to eradicate trans people” by the far left. Should that all be banned?
  If by "questioning of trans and gender ideology" you mean "advocating that trans people should not be allowed to exist, by denying them the therapies and procedures they need to transition", then yes - because that is advocating for the eradication of trans people - not by murder - sure, but by ideological suppression. If instead you mean things like "I have no desire to change my own gender" or "I don't really understand why someone would want to transition", then no - of course not.
  And because I've interacted with enough concern-trolls like you to know what you're going to say next, yes - the exact line can absolutely be fuzzy and subjective - I've already said that, and I don't pretend to have a nice neat solution to the issue, but you don't need to have a solution in hand to point out a problem. That's why the point of my comment was centered around the fact that we should (though clearly you disagree) at least be able to agree that literal, unambiguous genocidal rhetoric, such as that professed by Nazis is something that shouldn't be tolerated.
  The fact that you disagree with that point so strongly tells me all I need to know about you, really - and because this is - in fact a free platform, where we're all free to engage or not engage with whoever we want - I'm going to go ahead and disengage with you - because, like the lady who originally brought up this point - I really don't want to waste time talking to Nazi Sympathizers (or people who spend an embarrassing amount of time on this site arguing about what gender other people prefer to identify as, and whether or not that identity should be strongly linked to what's in their pants)
  
  Can you give a few examples of what kind of speech you think should be tolerated that is not? And do you believe that communities should be allowed to make explicit rules against certain talking points? What stops you from making a discord server or your own instance to discuss whatever these topics are? Why does everyone else should have to read it?
  
  Yes there is. When your freedom directly invades the freedom of other people you are passing the threshold of what is tolerable.
  When you form a group of people and declare it's free speech to discuss how women shouldn't be allowed to vote, for example, you aren't just voicing any random opinion. Words have consequences and words can hurt people. You are past the line of tolerance because you actively invade other people's freedom.
  I can only imagine that thinking it's freedom to allow these talking points to freely flourish online stems from the naive believe that nothing will come of these types of echo chambers, but it does. We have already experience with this from the incel and racist mass shooters and the online communities that helped birthing them.
  I don't say it's easy to decide in every case when you should put a stop to a discussion. But simply allowing everything is not the way. And ironically this squabble community realises this by also not allowing everything.
  
  Thanks for your response. Free speech is a nuanced topic and I appreciate well though out discussions about it.
  I agree, It's very hard to decide on a case by case basis what is and isn't tolerable. That's the main reason why I questions arguments for limiting speech--how can you make non-arbitrary distinctions between the two and who should have the authority to decide?
  I think your example of speech advocating for women to not have the right to vote is a good subject to consider.
  I agree, arguing that women shouldn't have the right to vote is beyond rediciulous and in a vacuum, it would be reasonable to consider that speech intolerable. But on the other hand, wasn't it freedom of speech that gave women the power to gain suffrage in the first place?
  You mention drawing the distinction for intolerable speech at speech that limits the freedom of others. In an abstract sense I think that's reasonable, but in practice I'm not so sure. Anti-suffragists often argued that granting women the right to vote infringed on their freedom. That's obviously a morally wrong argument, but who should be allowed to decide that?
  
  how can you make non-arbitrary distinctions between the two and who should have the authority to decide?
  The core of the problem, I think, is that there is no non-arbitrary distinction for every case and no one should have absolute authority about these decisions. Cue decentralised communities. The discussions around these topics are messy and exhausting, but I think that’s as good as it gets. Communicating and changing again and again where this arbitrary lines get drawn is what people have to do, even when that doesn’t feel exactly satisfying.
  For the suffrage example, if you look up what the counter-arguments where, it’s actually that they believed women weren’t capable of voting because they supposedly didn’t have the time or mental capacity to think about politics. Or that women “don’t want the vote”. I wouldn’t call that feeling threatened in their freedom, they felt threatened in their worldview.
  I do think a lot of people do not see this distinction (is my freedom threatened or my worldview?) because they happen to not really fear that their rights might actually be stripped away someday. For someone who struggles to empathise with this fear it might seem overly dramatic how other people react to them just asking questions.
  
  lmao you are the perfect example of what is wrong with this kind of thinking. You are free to ahead and block someone who was simply arguing in favor of free speech, but no one thinks big of you for it and the fact you decided to declare it to the world is hilarious.
  
  Try visiting Belsen or Dachau, you fucking child.
  
  OK? That doesn't absolve the real childish behavior I was responding to, you idiot.
  
  Anyone who advocates tolerating literal Nazis is either a hopelessly naive useful idiot for Nazis, or a Nazi themselves.
  This rubbish is part of the problem with the internet right now. Just because you decided that one side is a "nazi" or "hateful" it doesn't mean it's actually true. You're saying "my opinion is right and the only real opinion so everyone else should be banned".
  You know who also thinks that? Fascists. The literal nazis thought like that too.
  
  There is good and bad, and good people can’t assume they’ll always be able to fight harder or yell louder.
  People have to remember that to the "bad people", you're the "bad people". Neither side should be advocating for banning the other from discussing their opinions and views, yet it's only one side that's calling for that.
  
  it’s only one side that’s calling for that
  I don't think this is due to some ideological commitment. The strong can suppress the weak, but the weak can't suppress the strong. Whichever side has the upper hand at the moment will have members calling for censorship.
  
  Currently the weak are suppressing the strong though through their scare tactics of labelling anyone that disagrees "transphobic" or "bigot" or "nazi".
  
  That's classic fascist rhetoric.
  
  Fascists love censorship. Who in here is advocating for and begging for censorship?
  
  "It's bad to be transphobic, bigoted or a nazi"
  "you call anyone who disagrees with you 'transphobic' or 'bigot' or 'nazi'"
  
  What’s happening however is:
  “Maybe don’t experiment on children by giving them irreversible puberty blockers and surgeries”
  “Transphobe!!! Bigot! Die fucking Terf nazi!!!!”
  
  I see you've got your little bit of screen time so you're back on your rants. When the world continues to spin and you are the minority, will you be one of the ones to change your views? Will you be the coward who holds his bigotries in silence? Or the vocal minority that rails against the coming of the light and is seen by all as the impotent creature of hate that you would be?
  Place your bets.
  
  Great fantasies and what ifs! Really making a good point 😂
  
  When you're dying of cancer, we won't experiment on you with chemo either. Fair?
  
  Chemo isn’t experimental though. There are experimental types of cancer treatments and guess what? They go through years and years of trials and tests. You know what hasn’t done that? Puberty blockers.
This is a great overview of the benefits and problems of free speech platforms without the immediate nosedive into the dogwhistle argument that seems to just be used as a thought/discussion stopper more than anything else lately.
I feel that it's vitally important that free speech spaces exist. Places to discuss "ideas that the majority may find offensive or horrifying" are important, but they aren't for everyone and they do by their nature offer spaces for "undesirable" people like holocaust deniers.
- Exactly, and as long as the platform provides ways to ignore people like holocaust deniers, holocaust deniers should be allowed on the platform.
  I hate racists, but I don't want all racists to be banned from Lemmy/Twitter/Facebook/etc. I want them to be able to share their opinions on there, in large part because I can then challenge their ideas and opinions. If I feel that they're being disingenuous, arguing in bad faith, and start name calling etc I can just block them and move on. That is how places like this should work IMO. That is what "free speech" advocates want.
  I don't believe there should be ANY restrictions on what people can say on here as long as it isn't illegal. No one should be getting banned or censored for sharing their opinions IMO.
But you can’t keep out the second group unless you compromise your principles as a member of the first group.
The thing is that you don't need to and shouldn't "keep them out". What you should do is just let people ignore/block/mute them.
- How do you prevent such a platform to turn into an environment that is actively hostile towards the people they "nicely discuss" should be dead / subjugated / tortured / etc.?
  Or do you think it is okay to drive out certain types of people? How is that still considered "free speech" if those people's voices will be completely missing from the platform?
  
  You let people self moderate. Once you block a user you don't see them anymore.
  How is that still considered “free speech” if those people’s voices will be completely missing from the platform?
  It's free speech because they're allowed to post there. Them choosing not to because they can't handle other people being allowed to exercise their free speech is a them problem, not the platforms problem.
  
  Considering the original movement for free speech it is rather cynical to think it's freedom to silence people. But that's what people are doing when they create an environment that is so hostile towards certain groups of people that these people won't participate. Freedom to communicate hate speech is creating an echo chamber, not a free speech platform.
  
  The problem is when one side is calling everything they disagree with “hate speech” and banning everyone that even questions it.
  Individuals blocking people isn’t “silencing” them. It’s not infringing on free speech.
  It’s funny that you mention an echo chamber when this heavy handed Moderation and censorship is literally making one. When you only allow one viewpoint and ban all the others you’re literally making an echo chamber. You guys want an echo chamber, just one that echos your viewpoint.

I misread that as you describing your dog as succulent.

That was some awkward English, fixed it now :)
- It's all good, I think I just needed to read more slowly!

Why bummer? It's a great place so far in my opinion. The people are so much friendlier here.

More good options is always a good thing.
True, Squabbles just felt better suited than Lemmy to short, no context random posts and photos. Might be all in my head though :)

Like someone else said in another comment, I'm sure everybody on the left agree with the concept of free speech. So IMHO the real question is, why is it the case that platforms advocating free speech attract right wingers and extremists?

Because the left does not approve of hate speech, which is what right wingers immediately rush to spew whenever they see freeze peach.
People confuse free speech with freedom to harass and driving people out. When 90 % of a site (as an example) are antisemitic rants and antisemitic memes Jews are actively driven out of the place. You actually make a place less free by allowing discrimatory content. People have to potentially hide their identity or have to endure constant hostility. In consequence you are removing their voices from the platform.
I guess most "people on the left" would agree that you can create such a platform for yourself and your buddies but do not call it "free speech" when in reality it just creates a venting platform for a certain type of people.
I’m sure everybody on the left agree with the concept of free speech
Not sure if serious......?

Yo dog, I gotta know. Where are you posting those succulent pics?! I've been missing r/Succulents since the blackout.

Mostly !succulents@midwest.social and sometimes !cactus@sh.itjust.works for cacti (hope I'm linking it correctly).
- Thank you!

but is there ANY self-described “bastion of free speech on the internet” that is not a cesspool full of awful people? Just one?

The thing is that you're just calling people that you disagree with "awful people" because they have different opinions. They also think you're awful for the same reason.

People need to get away from this idea that people shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions and ideas. I'm all for completely unrestricted free speech. Let racist people spew their racist hateful garbage - but let people call them out on it. Let people try to change their mind. Let people show them exactly how they're being a piece of shit.

All you have to do is give people options to block/mute people and you can take care of it yourself. What I hate is when people call for censoring and banning of differing opinions on a platform level.

That is not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that every single online platform that I know that describes itself as a "free speech platform/bastion/zone/whatever" gets sooner or later filled to the brim with people spouting vile, deplorable and often violent rhetoric.
I can discuss a lot of things and accept, understand or at least tolerate a lot of opinions differing from mine, but things like "black people are sub-human", "gays should be killed" or "preschoolers can be sexy"* are NOT in that group. And these types of comments are inevitably what naming your site a "free speech platform" attracts in my experience. I think there is no way to discuss (or even just utter) them in good faith, and yes, I do consider people holding such beliefs to be awful - it's not like I’m trying to use the term lightly or to denote folks who like different pizza toppings or TV shows than I do...
- My point is that just because you can't tolerate them it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to be presented. Like I said - give people the ability to block/mute people and let them self moderate what content they interact with and see. You don't like people saying "black people are sub human" and don't want to have a conversation with them to point out why they're wrong etc? Cool, block them. Problem solved.
  I will discuss anything with anyone. I'll happily debate a racist to try and show them why they're wrong and being a piece of shit. I'll debate a flat earther to show them the facts that prove the earth is round. If/when the racist starts name calling and being disingenous I'll call them out on it and if they double down I simply block them - that's what I've done in this very thread when some guy started name calling and becoming abusive when we were 6 comments deep each in conversation. I disagreed with their viewpoint, but I would never want their ability to give their viewpoint to be taken away. Once it became clear that they were not interested in an actual discussion and just resorted to name calling, I simply blocked them and "walk away".
  That is what free speech advocates want. Just because you're offended by something it doesn't mean it should be censored or banned. As Ricky Gervais said:
  "I want people to stop saying that joke's offensive. I want them to start saying "I found it offensive" because that's all that it is. You're just telling me how you feel about it."
- Still waiting for that answer on what genocide is happening.
- What “genocidal fascism” is currently happening against trans people? How many thousand trans people have been rounded up and murdered by the government in 2023? Tens of thousands? Millions already?
  Going by your profile you’re trans, right? How many times have you escaped from the people rounding up the trans people to take them to their death?
  There’s no genocide happening.