It is intentionally vague. Please see the sidebar for the posts what is beehaw? and beehaw is a community. In particular that second link talks about the ethos of why the rules are intentionally vague. In short, this prevents anyone from being malicious and hiding behind rules to “just ask questions” or otherwise harass members with impunity.
You’re not wrong. But how does that make a successful website when you ban everyone who challenges ideas? People are mean in real life, all some are, and I don’t see how just banning what you don’t like makes you prepared to deal with ‘mean’ people.
But how does that make a successful website when you ban everyone who challenges ideas?
It doesn’t, but why would you think that they ban everyone who challenges ideas? They only want you to be nice.
People are mean in real life, all some are, and I don’t see how just banning what you don’t like makes you prepared to deal with ‘mean’ people.
Maybe that doesn’t perfectly prepare you, but not every website needs to do that. Other websites exist, on many of them you can literally be as mean as you want.
there’s tons of websites, but they rarely are big, because nobody wants to spend time on them. Even on fedi, look at https://freespeechextremist.com/main/public and more. Did you even try finding any of them?
it’s that way on purpose so y’all can ban whoever you want
it is that way on purpose, and it is so we can ban people on an as-needed basis (which i guess in a sense is “whoever [we] want”) but excluding obvious trolls i think we’ve banned literally three people ever on the instance and it’s been extant for a year. using intuition on what’s acceptable and what’s not–and nudging them when they break a boundary–appears to work quite well for our users, so we’re not liable to start writing explicit rules any time soon
It is intentionally vague. Please see the sidebar for the posts what is beehaw? and beehaw is a community. In particular that second link talks about the ethos of why the rules are intentionally vague. In short, this prevents anyone from being malicious and hiding behind rules to “just ask questions” or otherwise harass members with impunity.
Intentionally vague makes me think it’s that way on purpose so y’all can ban whoever you want
they can ban whoever they want, they own the website. Just like fb and twitter can ban whoever they want.
You’re not wrong. But how does that make a successful website when you ban everyone who challenges ideas? People are mean in real life, all some are, and I don’t see how just banning what you don’t like makes you prepared to deal with ‘mean’ people.
This is not a space for mean people. They are not welcome.
It doesn’t, but why would you think that they ban everyone who challenges ideas? They only want you to be nice.
Maybe that doesn’t perfectly prepare you, but not every website needs to do that. Other websites exist, on many of them you can literally be as mean as you want.
Like which websites can you be as mean as you want? I haven’t come across that
I guess there’s the chans, 4chan, 8kun etc. for one
What else?
there’s tons of websites, but they rarely are big, because nobody wants to spend time on them. Even on fedi, look at https://freespeechextremist.com/main/public and more. Did you even try finding any of them?
it is that way on purpose, and it is so we can ban people on an as-needed basis (which i guess in a sense is “whoever [we] want”) but excluding obvious trolls i think we’ve banned literally three people ever on the instance and it’s been extant for a year. using intuition on what’s acceptable and what’s not–and nudging them when they break a boundary–appears to work quite well for our users, so we’re not liable to start writing explicit rules any time soon