The #StopDeletingUs campaign is resisting a mass wave of deletions of sex positive accounts and arguing for fairer moderation of sexual content online.
The #StopDeletingUs campaign is resisting a mass wave of deletions of sex positive accounts and arguing for fairer moderation of sexual content online.
It tough right? You get rules lawyers if they’re complex and specific, but really general rules tend to get abused just as hard, often by the very people who help build a community. Funny enough social media platforms themselves have been a good example recently.
It sounds like their approach works for them though, so that’s good.
The reason behind the rules might help with that. Don’t be a dick and be nice are more about being respectful and understanding than following etiquette. From my point of view at least. The specific way you act is not a problem until it’s related to another person.
What I mean is that the way people perceive you is the important part. If someone accuses you of being a dick and you disagree, don’t defend your words, explain your attitude. At the same time, don’t go around accusing people of beings dicks and try to see if it’s not just miscommunication.
The letter of the law entitle people to not care for any harm they cause if it’s in their rights. Then there are the people that realize pain is what the law tries to avoid and act to correct themselves without the need of being guilty.
I personally know people that would argue etiquette is a form of kindness. They unironically think there’s a connection between where the spoon goes and murder. This is of course not true, but the ability to transcend your own cultural context and look at humanity as a whole is surprisingly rare.
If we could all do that, then maybe specific rules would always be unnecessary. But again, that’s not my lived experience.
I’m not sure I agree with this as a general statement. People are often wary of interpretable rules, because it invites personal bias, but strong systems to counter/offset such bias such as proper training and group decisions easily fix this.
That is very much not my lived experience, but I obviously can’t transfer it to you. I guess I could make a parallel with the concept of “rule of law” in politics - countries that don’t have it and leave interpretation of justice up to the authorities inevitably become really corrupt.
Yes but that’s different from having a system which enshrines interpretability in their law tactfully. Some countries use panels of judges to deliver decisions and have law which is much more interpretable than places which are more letter of the law focused. You’re talking about combining judicial and executive functions which has a whole different set of issues.
If we’re debating, isn’t the distinction a form of precision rulemaking? I’ve always thought of judicial vs. executive as a form of constitutional structure personally.
Assuming you mean inquisitorial systems (maybe you don’t, please fill me in if I’m wrong), they still have pretty extensive laws. Just GDPR has 99 articles, for example.