FA+
Shop
This Scares the Hell Out of Me
7 years ago
Glimpse The Thoughts of Jack the Beaver
AN: To keep myself from being perma-banned, I will not be mentioning the names of anybody in charge of running FA. Certainly none named after mythical flying reptiles. Instead I'll just be calling them the FA Overlords.
I was speaking to
heavensteed earlier this morning. He was telling me how conservatives were being banned for being conservative. Whether this is true or not, I'm not sure. I've only started looking into this so I refuse to just declare it to be true. What is true though is Heavensteed showed me section 2.7 of the FA Code of Conduct. Holy shit this thing. This thing makes Miniluv seem benevolent by comparison. The section reads as follows:
Section 2.7: Do not identify with or promote real hate or terrorist organizations and their ideologies.
A hate group is one that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a designated sector of society (e.g. Nazism, KKK, ISIS, Alt-Right). Symbols of hate associated with these groups (e.g. Swastika, Confederate Flag, etc.) will not be permitted in user avatars, real-life photographs (unless for historical education), and content intended solely to disrupt the community. Users who identify with or promote real hate or terrorist organizations and their ideologies may be permanently banned from Fur Affinity without warning.
Let's break this down line by line shall we?
"Do not identify with or promote real hate or terrorist organizations and their ideologies." The first thing that strikes me about this line is how vague it is. Like okay fine, I won't support hate groups. Please qualify a hate group or terrorist organization for me. Seriously, what is your definition? I consider college campuses like UC Berkley who try to control free speech to be hate groups, they hate free speech. If someone supports them, are they going to be banned for supporting hate groups? I suppose it depends on what our benevolent FA lords decide.
But what gets me is just how vague this is. That's going to be a recurring theme with this.
"A hate group is one that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a designated sector of society (e.g. Nazism, KKK, ISIS, Alt-Right)." Well their's my definition, but somehow it's even worse. No one is going to support violence against any group, nor should they. But the word that gets me is "hostility". What constitutes hostility here? The Southern Poverty Law Center is hostile towards designated members of society, specifically hate groups. I suppose they have no place on FA?
I know you're going to say I'm reaching, but my point here is the wording again is vague. At what point does someone's view become hate exactly? It doesn't say. I suppose it depends on the judgement of the Overlords of FA. Well what if I hold a view they don't like? One I consider perfectly fine, but they consider hate.
I do not support our President. I think he's a bright orange dildo not worth anyone's time. But I have lots of friends who do. Would they be banned for supporting him? If the Overlords consider the right to be guilty of practicing hostility (What the fuck does that mean) then I suppose it would. It depends on if those wielding a ban hammer think so.
The idea that your speech being acceptable depends on the opinions of some overlord is terrifying to me. It means that FA only allows certain people with a certain mindset. That mindset being "Whatever the guys in charge consider acceptable."
"Symbols of hate associated with these groups (e.g. Swastika, Confederate Flag, etc.) will not be permitted in user avatars, real-life photographs (unless for historical education), and content intended solely to disrupt the community." Of all the lines in this section, this one feels the most like something from 1984. First let me start by saying if you're actually wearing a swastika as a Nazi then fuck off. If you actually are preaching neo-nazi crap, why the fuck are you even in the rainbow colored fuzz land? Shouldn't you be off shaving your head?
Beyond that though, that's a disturbing sentence. The confederate flag is used by
redneckfurs, who support family and love. While I hate the redneck label as a rule, just looking over their FA page suggests nothing worse about them then being very country. But they could be banned because of their icon. "Well just change the icon." Why should they? Because it upsets someone? Why does someone else's sensitivity more important than their free speech? You can't just arbitrarily declare that "Only those who adhere to my values get free speech." That's the very definition of censorship.
And incidentally, some people consider the Christian cross to be a hate symbol. I mean, it was the sign the crusaders used. It was what the KKK used when they set it on fire. By these new rules it anyone displaying that should be banned. Hell, seeing as religion has been used to justify all sorts of shit, maybe religious symbols as a whole should be banned. After all, trying to share what you believe could be considered hostile by those who don't believe.
The line that most scares me though is "Content intended solely to disrupt the community." Oh my God that statement. That is so vaguely worded it could apply literally to anything. Hell it could apply to this journal, seeing as I'm trying to disrupt the censorship occurring. That could apply to anyone political, anyone who disagrees with the way FA is operated, or anyone the Overlords just don't like.
indagare is a friend of mine who regularly posts about the poor and the plight of the US citizen. His journals stimulate some...spirited debate. Sometimes their is arguing. I would argue that disrupts the community, seeing as it polarizes people. So should he be banned? I dunno, maybe. Or maybe just don't say anything controversial or passionate at all. Don't hold strong opinions, be as safe and bland as possible.
"Users who identify with or promote real hate or terrorist organizations and their ideologies may be permanently banned from Fur Affinity without warning." And once again we run into the same issue of "You never defined a hate group". With it's vague wording, this statement means that anyone the Overlords consider being in the wrong. Again, some people consider the Catholic church a terrorist organization, you could argue it wiped out American Indian culture. So by my open support of it, I should be banned for supporting a terrorist organization.
But my favorite part is that the ban's can come without warning. No chance to respond, no debate with the Overlords, just the ban hammer. But hey, it's the perfect solution. No really, it is. It keeps those who could respond to you from being able to speak, while allowing you to claim you're defending people from hate groups. It's the perfect way to keep your regime in good order.
As you might have guessed, I loathe this section. I've only now started reading through the whole document, I've got a ways to go, but I'm not impressed. I hope to God FA doesn't become the den of censorship I see it becoming. And I hope no one thinks that permabanning those you disagree with is a good thing. Because frankly, that makes you every bit as bad as them.
I'll continue to be a vocal supporter of unrestricted free speech. In my opinion no right is as important. This is a right I would die for. And when I see people so casually piss all over it, it leaves me frightened.
Let me close by saying one thing. If I get banned, it won't be because of my supporting hate groups. It won't be because of any vague harassment. It'll be because FA didn't like what I had to say. And it'll be all the proof you need FA is censoring those it doesn't like.
I wish everyone who reads this a good day. Exorcise your right to free speech by telling section 2.7 to fuck off.
I was speaking to
heavensteed earlier this morning. He was telling me how conservatives were being banned for being conservative. Whether this is true or not, I'm not sure. I've only started looking into this so I refuse to just declare it to be true. What is true though is Heavensteed showed me section 2.7 of the FA Code of Conduct. Holy shit this thing. This thing makes Miniluv seem benevolent by comparison. The section reads as follows:Section 2.7: Do not identify with or promote real hate or terrorist organizations and their ideologies.
A hate group is one that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a designated sector of society (e.g. Nazism, KKK, ISIS, Alt-Right). Symbols of hate associated with these groups (e.g. Swastika, Confederate Flag, etc.) will not be permitted in user avatars, real-life photographs (unless for historical education), and content intended solely to disrupt the community. Users who identify with or promote real hate or terrorist organizations and their ideologies may be permanently banned from Fur Affinity without warning.
Let's break this down line by line shall we?
"Do not identify with or promote real hate or terrorist organizations and their ideologies." The first thing that strikes me about this line is how vague it is. Like okay fine, I won't support hate groups. Please qualify a hate group or terrorist organization for me. Seriously, what is your definition? I consider college campuses like UC Berkley who try to control free speech to be hate groups, they hate free speech. If someone supports them, are they going to be banned for supporting hate groups? I suppose it depends on what our benevolent FA lords decide.
But what gets me is just how vague this is. That's going to be a recurring theme with this.
"A hate group is one that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a designated sector of society (e.g. Nazism, KKK, ISIS, Alt-Right)." Well their's my definition, but somehow it's even worse. No one is going to support violence against any group, nor should they. But the word that gets me is "hostility". What constitutes hostility here? The Southern Poverty Law Center is hostile towards designated members of society, specifically hate groups. I suppose they have no place on FA?
I know you're going to say I'm reaching, but my point here is the wording again is vague. At what point does someone's view become hate exactly? It doesn't say. I suppose it depends on the judgement of the Overlords of FA. Well what if I hold a view they don't like? One I consider perfectly fine, but they consider hate.
I do not support our President. I think he's a bright orange dildo not worth anyone's time. But I have lots of friends who do. Would they be banned for supporting him? If the Overlords consider the right to be guilty of practicing hostility (What the fuck does that mean) then I suppose it would. It depends on if those wielding a ban hammer think so.
The idea that your speech being acceptable depends on the opinions of some overlord is terrifying to me. It means that FA only allows certain people with a certain mindset. That mindset being "Whatever the guys in charge consider acceptable."
"Symbols of hate associated with these groups (e.g. Swastika, Confederate Flag, etc.) will not be permitted in user avatars, real-life photographs (unless for historical education), and content intended solely to disrupt the community." Of all the lines in this section, this one feels the most like something from 1984. First let me start by saying if you're actually wearing a swastika as a Nazi then fuck off. If you actually are preaching neo-nazi crap, why the fuck are you even in the rainbow colored fuzz land? Shouldn't you be off shaving your head?
Beyond that though, that's a disturbing sentence. The confederate flag is used by
redneckfurs, who support family and love. While I hate the redneck label as a rule, just looking over their FA page suggests nothing worse about them then being very country. But they could be banned because of their icon. "Well just change the icon." Why should they? Because it upsets someone? Why does someone else's sensitivity more important than their free speech? You can't just arbitrarily declare that "Only those who adhere to my values get free speech." That's the very definition of censorship.And incidentally, some people consider the Christian cross to be a hate symbol. I mean, it was the sign the crusaders used. It was what the KKK used when they set it on fire. By these new rules it anyone displaying that should be banned. Hell, seeing as religion has been used to justify all sorts of shit, maybe religious symbols as a whole should be banned. After all, trying to share what you believe could be considered hostile by those who don't believe.
The line that most scares me though is "Content intended solely to disrupt the community." Oh my God that statement. That is so vaguely worded it could apply literally to anything. Hell it could apply to this journal, seeing as I'm trying to disrupt the censorship occurring. That could apply to anyone political, anyone who disagrees with the way FA is operated, or anyone the Overlords just don't like.
indagare is a friend of mine who regularly posts about the poor and the plight of the US citizen. His journals stimulate some...spirited debate. Sometimes their is arguing. I would argue that disrupts the community, seeing as it polarizes people. So should he be banned? I dunno, maybe. Or maybe just don't say anything controversial or passionate at all. Don't hold strong opinions, be as safe and bland as possible. "Users who identify with or promote real hate or terrorist organizations and their ideologies may be permanently banned from Fur Affinity without warning." And once again we run into the same issue of "You never defined a hate group". With it's vague wording, this statement means that anyone the Overlords consider being in the wrong. Again, some people consider the Catholic church a terrorist organization, you could argue it wiped out American Indian culture. So by my open support of it, I should be banned for supporting a terrorist organization.
But my favorite part is that the ban's can come without warning. No chance to respond, no debate with the Overlords, just the ban hammer. But hey, it's the perfect solution. No really, it is. It keeps those who could respond to you from being able to speak, while allowing you to claim you're defending people from hate groups. It's the perfect way to keep your regime in good order.
As you might have guessed, I loathe this section. I've only now started reading through the whole document, I've got a ways to go, but I'm not impressed. I hope to God FA doesn't become the den of censorship I see it becoming. And I hope no one thinks that permabanning those you disagree with is a good thing. Because frankly, that makes you every bit as bad as them.
I'll continue to be a vocal supporter of unrestricted free speech. In my opinion no right is as important. This is a right I would die for. And when I see people so casually piss all over it, it leaves me frightened.
Let me close by saying one thing. If I get banned, it won't be because of my supporting hate groups. It won't be because of any vague harassment. It'll be because FA didn't like what I had to say. And it'll be all the proof you need FA is censoring those it doesn't like.
I wish everyone who reads this a good day. Exorcise your right to free speech by telling section 2.7 to fuck off.
I already got a warning once, just for defending a statement I made on a journal. I respectfully told an artist that I couldn't support his decision to go through sexual reassignment surgery (which was the subject/announcement of the journal in question), but that I respected his right to make that choice. I got a lot of blowback from it, and none of it came from the artist who posted the journal.
The worst one came from a user who literally said some of the most vitriolic and hateful accusations about me and my motives at the time, and then blocked me, so that I couldn't even reply to defend myself. And then, when I reported said comment to the administrators in a trouble ticket, they ruled that this person was in the right and refused to do anything about the comment or the fact that I literally had no recourse whatsoever to state my defense, despite how it clearly violated multiple parts of the code of conduct, and I cited each instance with direct quotation and cross reference to the language in said section of the code that was violated.
Now, that being said, I ended up violating the codes myself, when I replied to a reply that was made towards that comment to call out said individual on his or her BS, while trying to explain my side of things to the person that replied to said bad comment. The administrators called me out on it by removing the reply and informing me which section I had violated. And on review of the language in the code, they were right to do so, and I agreed with them on that matter. However, it was in disputing this removal (and the subsequent research that I performed to find the language that justified their action and increased my understanding of the situation) that I also filed my complaint over said vitriolic comment. You already read what happened above.
I hate to say it, but it's clear that the administrators are biased. And as you said, it appears that freedom of speech is in danger here on FA, if your views don't align with that of the owners/administrators on here. I just hope that things don't get so bad as you've mentioned that they could permaban someone without giving them a chance to defend themselves, because I, for one, enjoy using FA as a platform. It's a great website filled with wonderful artists and people, and it was one of the things that helped me discover my love for transformation art in the first place. If I were to be banned, simply for expressing my views respectfully and peacefully, while allowing others to do the same, it would be the epitome of hypocrisy and censorship.
What scares me is that this is happening not just in furry; it's happening in our day to day society as we become increasingly polarized. Some folks cannot even conceive of having friends who 'voted for the other guy'. I read news sites and try to make sure I'm not just reading from one ideological perspective; it's become impossible not to know what I'm going to read almost by looking at the by-line anymore. And the reality liberal writers describe and the reality conservative writers describe don't even seem like they are inhabiting the same universe let alone the same country.
I've been very fortunate so far, but I hear all the time about others who are not. We'll see.
Dominus tecum
And I agree, it reminds me of live before the Spanish civil war. Politics aren't political. They're about teams and scoring wins. You want to make others look bad so your team looks good by comparison.
Dominus tecum
Dominus tecum