More like half a million now probably

Oh, okay but do the Lemmy devs really have control over who starts an instance? Isn't this the whole point of the fediverse or do I have it wrong?

What's Hexbear?

Your detailed response outlines a nuanced stance on the issue, framing it within a long historical context. However, I believe that framing the issue as 'already resolved' dismisses the evolving complexities of online moderation, and how it intersects with the fluid nature of speech and social norms.

1. Historical Precedence: While it's true that bigotry has existed throughout human history, how we engage with it has evolved, especially in the digital era. To suggest that the 'tools and principles are well-established' may not fully capture the complexity of online spaces where interaction occurs asynchronously, across cultures, and without the benefit of vocal tone or facial expression.

2. Freedom of Speech: You critique the notion of debating whether we should 'tolerate the free speech of bigots.' However, even well-intended moderation can have a chilling effect on speech. How do we prevent the slippery slope where the bounds of acceptable speech continually narrow?

3. Intent vs Impact: You suggest judging people solely by their actions, but this discounts the complex interplay between intent and interpretation. Who gets to define what constitutes bigotry in a statement open to multiple interpretations?

4. Potential for Misjudgment: You accept that innocent people could be wrongly accused but say that this doesn't invalidate the act of moderation. While true, this doesn't address the ethical dilemma of sacrificing individual fairness for collective security.

5. The Role of Debate: The dismissal of debate as a tool available only to bigots undermines the basis of democratic society. Even well-established principles benefit from regular scrutiny. Shouldn't we always strive to challenge our existing models to account for new variables?

6. Moral High Ground: Your argument assumes a moral high ground, positioning any differing opinion as inherently stemming from hatred or ignorance. This approach precludes constructive discussion and leaves no room for the reevaluation of norms and rules.

In sum, I respect your position but believe that it does not leave room for the complexities and nuances of this discussion. Insinuating that only 'bigots' would want to engage in a debate about freedom of speech and platform moderation is reductive and does not further a meaningful conversation about how we navigate these tricky waters.

While I appreciate your perspective, it seems there's a misunderstanding. I'm not advocating for bigotry or hiding behind 'polite discussion' as a shield for harmful views. My interest is in the broader context of what content is so problematic that it requires removal and under what guidelines. Free speech indeed comes with consequences, which is why it's important to examine those guidelines and their consistent application. This is not about condoning transphobia or any form of bigotry; it's about discussing the thresholds and criteria that platforms like Nexus Mods use to make their moderation decisions. Understanding these mechanisms is essential for any community that wishes to maintain both openness and respect.

The intent of my posts was not to reopen settled debates, but to explore the principles that underlie how moderation decisions are made on platforms that host user-generated content. I believe this is a worthy subject of inquiry because it can affect various communities in different ways. While you see this issue as settled, the modding community is ever-evolving, and new scenarios that challenge established norms will likely continue to arise. I assure you that my intent is to engage in good faith, and I am open to learning from this experience. If you choose not to engage further, I respect your decision.

I appreciate your input, but I'm puzzled as to why you chose to comment on a post explicitly seeking constructive dialogue if you're not interested in having a nuanced discussion. My original question aimed to understand the criteria behind platform moderation decisions. I believe it's an issue that can be discussed without necessarily endorsing or disavowing the content of the mod in question. Would you be open to discussing that aspect?

I completely agree with your perspective. The essence of a Bethesda game, and many other sandbox-style games, is the freedom to tailor the experience to one's own preferences. Removing a mod that is essentially harmless takes away from that freedom and raises questions about the influence of ideological stances in the moderation process.

As you suggested, locking the comments could serve as a reasonable compromise. It would allow those who wish to use the mod to do so, while mitigating the potential for inflammatory discussions. This way, the community retains its diversity of choice without being subjected to a single viewpoint.

The intent of my original post was not to advocate for intolerance, but to question how moderation decisions are made, especially when there appears to be inconsistency. In doing so, I hoped to promote reasoned debate on that specific issue, not to engage in bad faith discussions.

While I understand that certain topics may be inherently fraught, the objective was to consider how platform moderation intersects with issues of free choice and community standards. That said, if the prevailing consensus is that some subjects are too divisive for productive discourse, then that too is a topic worth discussing.

OK fine, I don't want to argue with someone who's obviously closed minded and can't debate on simple issues.

Keep it classy bro.

The rhetorical question highlights the complex nature of the debates around modding and game customization. The term "censorship" can indeed be used selectively to further one's viewpoint, whether it's calling for the removal of political elements from games or protesting the removal of a mod.

However, maybe it's worth considering that people may hold these opinions without necessarily harboring bigoted intentions. The desire to keep politics out of games, for some, might stem from the view that games should be an escape from real-world issues. Conversely, concerns about censorship could arise from a belief in preserving the open nature of modding communities.

What we're really grappling with is how to balance the broad spectrum of user needs and societal responsibilities. Accusations of bigotry or censorship often serve to shut down dialogue rather than facilitate a nuanced discussion about these complex issues.

So while your question is rhetorical, it does bring to light the need for more open and honest conversations about the competing values that are in play here.

Hey bud, don't tell me how I should play the game I spent my hard earned money on. If I want to remove a certain feature I don't like, you and I both should have the freedom to do so.