this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2024
43 points (76.5% liked)

Asklemmy

43941 readers
579 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Cloak@lemmy.ml
mekhos@lemmy.ml
tmpod@lemmy.pt
14specks@lemmy.ml
43
Should I join "free speech" alternatives? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 6 months ago by sinewyshadow@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
96 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Hello! I've been searching for a reddit alternative, and yes, I've picked Lemmy and Raddle, but here's the thing. My morbid curiosity is perked up, and a part of me wants to join the "free speech" alternatives, like Saidit, Poal, etc. What's wrong with me that I want to join toxic places? I mean, yes I'll find a whole new perspective (albeit wrong), on political topics, but a part of me wants to be the antagonist, and post lefty memes, and music with a left-leaning message (bands from r/rabm) I know that's like kicking the hornet's nest, so you don't need to start in with "that's a bad idea" I know it is. My main point/question is, is it wrong to join a site with potential hate speech? Does it make someone a bad person?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] sorrybookbroke@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

How is this different than leftist propaganda?

It's not. In no way, shape, and or form. Once more, you are not immune to propaganda.

Again, I'm not stating you shouldn't seek out people who disagree with you, I seek these people out often, but you need to understand what your brain will do.

You should generally be cognizant of bias and the fact that you will, inevitably, accept without confirmation some information or internalize information you've confirmed incorrect. This is not only true to one group, and is just as true for those under the umbrella of "leftist" as much as under the term "alt right".

I will state it's less dangerous to be less cautious here than a free speach absolutist community. Here, we value truth. There, they value all speach even objectively false. Here, you'll see false info removed there, definitionally, or is not.

Lastly, for fascism, death of truth is a defining reality. To paraphrase Mussolini let not truth stand on a pillar except insomuch as it assists in our goals. In the places where absolutist freedom of speach reigns fascists, famously very good propagandists, thrive. This is a danger above a left winger repeating false statistics around racism in the police force, or the rates of spousal abuse. Or even myself lying about that Mussolini quote at the beginning of this paragraph

Thank you for the responce however and the respectful tone you took, I hope I clarified>

[โ€“] howrar@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So if I understand correctly, you're saying that

  1. you're more likely to be exposed to lies on a right wing forum compared to left wing forums
  2. the types of lies you're exposed to are more dangerous in a right wing community compared to the left.

So first of all, how do you determine that #1 is true? I've seen my fair share of misinformation on Lemmy and the left-leaning parts of Reddit getting highly upvoted and vice versa. But I'm basing this on what I personally know (and who knows if I'm right?) and in general, there isn't much objective info going around. It's mostly people sharing their sentiments on a topic with little to no factual information (e.g. "fuck [entity X]").

#2 also assumes that you're right to begin with and that sharing these false statistics would lead to a better world. Take false statistics on police racism for example. This can be a problem in many ways. Let's say hypothetically that there is no police racism, but we say there is and we convince everyone that we need to fix it. This can divert resources away from other problems (e.g. working on reducing spousal abuse), and thus making problems worse elsewhere. Moreso if the police force is tasked with handling spousal violence and they're now tied up in internal investigations, maybe losing funding, and thus reducing their capabilities. It'll also be fuelling an unnecessary conflict (possibly violent) between people who should otherwise be allies in the struggle that is life. More people get hurt, more people can die. That's a pretty dangerous outcome.