I'm not accusing you of this, but this argument sounds like the usual "my set of rules is not politically charged, they are just common sense!", which is always bollocks.
Do you feel that is more true in their comment than the one they were replying to, which characterised the code of conduct as politically charged in the first place without clarifying what they meant by it?
The question in response seemed like open curiosity.
I admit I haven't looked at Lemmy's CoC, but I have looked at Mastodon's CoC, I imagine it's practically the same, and yes, it's politically charged, so I tend to agree.
(When I talk about Mastodon's CoC, I am talking about the CoC of the main federated network; you get defederated from it if you don't share the same set of rules)
That wasn't what I asked. Do you see that you're also equating your personal opinion on the matter with the reality of how politically charged or not something is?
You disagree with it so it's politically charged. You're not even offering a definition of politically charged, just the scare words.
Beyond that, you're not even looking at the relevant document, but making a statement based purely on what you "imagine" it contains.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with their code of conduct, but I feel that you're exhibiting the very behaviour you were attempting to call out and portray as "always bollocks" originally.
It's not what you feel is "common sense" (or rather, you imagine that it isn't) so therefore it deserves to be marred as "politically charged."
No hate speech (for example, no "derogatory posts" based on gender) -> politically charged. ///// No posts or comments supporting or promoting QAnon related content or similarly disproven conspiracy theories -> politically charged.
If you want to look at it the other way, if there was a mastodon instance that said "no pro-immigration propaganda" or "no discussions about abortions" then it would be politically charged as well.
Of course if you ask Mastodon's people they will tell you "you can't just promote a conspiracy theory like qanon, that's common sense". The other way, "abortion is murder, you can't discuss how to murder babies, that's common sense". But no, it's not "common sense", it's politics. YOu don't want people to discuss the politics you don't like in your instance. Fair is fair.
Thanks, I appreciate the effort to clarify and to argue with concrete points.
Which Lemmy rules were you looking at? I can't find anything from the project itself except for a code of conduct for contributors.
The mastadon link you shared is applicable to a certain instance but doesn't seem to apply to the wider fediverse. I also don't see them claiming anything as common sense.
Also, question: Would you say free speech absolutism is politically charged?
>Which Lemmy rules were you looking at? I can't find anything from the project itself except for a code of conduct for contributors.
I was talking about the main lemmy instance, https://lemmy.world/ - if you look at the sidebar it says: "Be polite and follow the rules (https://mastodon.world/about)". That's what I linked to, above.
>The mastadon link you shared is applicable to a certain instance but doesn't seem to apply to the wider fediverse.
The main mastodon instance, mastodon.social, will defederate from you if your server has users that break those rules. I admit I haven't found any similar rules in mastodon.world, but I have to imagine it works the same (see below)
https://mastodon.social/about is the main mastodon instance of the fediverse -> click on "Moderated servers" to see the list of blocked servers and the reasons, like "disinformation" or "hate speech", which are politically charged. mastodon.world has chosen not to disclose their list of moderated servers, but given the list of rules, I predict a similar (or even the same) list. Mastodon servers of the main fediverse share a moderated servers blacklist through some mechanism that I don't know much about.
But.. this discussion was not originally about the server blacklist but about whether the set of rules had a political slant or not.
>I also don't see them claiming anything as common sense.
I imagine that someone who doesn't want to admit that those rules are politically charged will claim they are common sense - at least that's the way the argument has been presented to me in the past.
>Would you say free speech absolutism is politically charged?
Allowing everybody to express their political opinions without censorship is the opposite of a politically charged moderation.
I wonder what are you calling "politically-charged code of conduct here". Do you have an example?
Are you talking about that one single instance that became famous for having a strict code of conduct?