Discord has expanded its Hateful Conduct Policy to explicitly include prohibitions against misgendering and deadnaming in a policy update. Accompanying this policy update, Discord has also implemented a comprehensive warning system to enforce these guidelines effectively.

  • Ataraxia
    link
    fedilink
    12 years ago

    Finally justice against people who keep assuming I’m a guy online.

    • blaine
      link
      fedilink
      252 years ago

      No screeching. Just a sad realization that our 1st Amendment rights will slowly be whittled away by big-tech censorship. All while the unsophisticated masses (excited at the thought of a short-term culture war victory) cheer along the restriction of free expression.

      • Sabata11792
        link
        fedilink
        142 years ago

        The rights of a business are more important than your own. Isn’t that what you guys want?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        56
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        dont even need to read past the first line, how many times do i have to say this for anyone like you to get it in your head

        THE FIRST AMENDMENT ONLY PROTECTS YOU FROM GOVERNMENT SILENCING

        no, discord, the private chat service, that you must agree to their terms to use is not a government service. they can ban you for whatever they fuck they want, and are not liable.

      • First Majestic Comet
        link
        fedilink
        English
        62 years ago

        I won’t deny that Big Tech and Media companies do undermine our freedom in many ways (things like weaponizing copyright and anti-repair or anti-circumvention laws), but this isn’t an example of that, this is just Discord expanding on rules against hate speech and harassment which they already were against.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        392 years ago

        Just once in my life, i would like an American to actually know what the first amendment to the US constitution actually says.

        • First Majestic Comet
          link
          fedilink
          English
          42 years ago

          Kbin.social is a very poorly moderated Server, so the worst of the worst users tend to congregate there, and it’s a general purpose instance which is the face of Kbin so many instances will choose not to defederate it which would hurt the Kbin project.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 years ago

            yeah, the admin creating kbin is the only one interesting there. other than that, it’s just a place to subscribe to lemmy communities. Not much activity happening on its own.

            • First Majestic Comet
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              Yeah pretty much, even that isn’t very good, since the community had to step in and make Mbin because the Kbin dev wasn’t working on it or merging requests and the project was starting to fall behind because of it. Plus it ended up having some serious vulnerabilities like not federating mod actions and just federation in general which isn’t great and undermines its whole purpose as a federated forum. Even its killer feature Mastodon/Microblog integration didn’t and to my knowledge still doesn’t work properly.

      • @[email protected]OPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        952 years ago

        Everybody knows that these claims are bullshit. “1st Amendment rights” is the biggest dog whistle for bigots that they claim whenever their disrespectful conduct has consequences. You don’t give a flying fuck about other people’s “1st Amendment rights” when it isn’t your racist, sexist or transphobic friends. Otherwise you’d be up in arms against book bans, but your kind cheers for them and every other effort to silence people you don’t like.

        • blaine
          link
          fedilink
          62 years ago

          @squirrel

          @rtxn

          I’m actually a fairly progressive Bernie Sanders voter. I agree with Jon Stewart that the best cure for hate speech or more speech, rather than censorship. I am also against book bans for what it’s worth.

          • @[email protected]OPM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            472 years ago

            Honestly, I don’t care what you think you are. When you react to the news that there are consequences for transphobia with Fox News-style whining about the end of “freeze peach”, says pretty much everything anyone needs to know about you: You are a hypocrite who is A-OK with transphobia, bullying and harassment, but attempts to hide the obvious behind a veneer of plausible deniability, ie. the usual slew of right-wing talking points. John Stewart, my ass.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            48
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Regardless of your claimed allegiance, your interpretation of 1A is still incorrect.

            As a private entity, Discord is allowed to decide what content it permits and what it prohibits on its own platform. Especially in the case of online harrassment, a “let’s talk it out” attitude will get you nowhere.

      • Bo7a
        link
        fedilink
        482 years ago

        Just a reminder. What private companies do has nothing to do with your first amendment rights.

        Grow up or shut up.

      • LZamperini
        link
        fedilink
        192 years ago

        Big tech censorship? I mean the police are using pretty big tech to make sure only one side can protest safely. 1st amendment amirite.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        412 years ago

        There are already protections for bullying on Internet platforms. Intentionally misgendering is a form of bullying.

        The right to life should supercede someone’s right to free speech to undermine said life.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        452 years ago

        Please detail to me how discord, a private company, banning people who intentionally misgender or dead name others is a violation or the first amendment right in the United States?

        It doesn’t say ‘intentionally’ as you’ve pointed out, but the wording is clear and pretty reinforced throughout the article, just below the following quote in the article is another 3 ‘targeted’ explanations:

        “The update explicitly addresses behaviors considered violations of its hate speech policy, including targeted misgendering and deadnaming of transgender individuals.”

        You can’t say bomb in an airplane. You can’t shout fire in a building. You can’t shout removed in a Walmart. No one’s saying you can’t THINK whatever you feel like and SAY whatever you want in your own spaces, but you don’t own discord or the plane or the building or the Walmart so you gotta follow other people’s rules. Woe is you

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            52 years ago

            Turns out the homophobic slur that shares similarities to British cigarettes is banned from use here or on the client side, not sure which. Which, I’m fine with, just using it to make a point on what “censorship” looks like.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          6
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Regardless of the first amendment rights or US law, centralised unfree communication silos do govern more information than government.

          The claim that private corporations shouldn’t be subjected to the same ethical scrutiny (i.e: freedom of speech) as governments is invalidated once only very few people are exposed to other forms of communications than what these private corporations control.

          That being said, I am glad Discord is explictly banning the most obvious forms of transphobia. I will remind the privilaged white people here that none of these rules actually apply to most users on these platforms. Just go to any language or region where they won’t/can’t get sued or bad press.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        192 years ago

        Actually cry about it they just enumerated what they meant by harassment and this makes the rules explicitly more clear and not up to interpretation and abuse.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        332 years ago

        It’s crazy calling people unsophisticated when you’re this dumb. But crazy kinda fits your style.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        93
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        There it is.

        1A is irrelevant, it only protects against censorship by the government. Discord is a private entity, they can do whatever the hell they want on the platform they own. They aren’t obligated to host your opinions, and neither are conservative outlets obligated to host liberal opinions. Get it right next time.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    72 years ago

    Discord never had freedom of speech to begin with, but isn’t this extreme? People should be able to say what they want privately in their own servers. Brigading and harassment in DMs is already banned.

    • Chetzemoka
      link
      fedilink
      362 years ago

      You do not have a right to free speech on the property of a private business. A restaurant can kick you out for being an asshole. A tech company can kick you off their servers for being an asshole.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      Discord does not use e2e encryption meaning they can do whatever they want with the content you share not only with your friends but with the company. They can use the guise of safety (eg we found a private server planning terrorism) to extend this access to everything. Since the company can read everything on the platform, they’re carrying a serious set of risks and liability with all of that potentially bad or illegal content. By creating policies like this, they can sidestep litigation (to an extent) when bad content is found by pointing to policies and handwavy enforcement. It might not be illegal to deadname (at least in the US); that does not stop civil litigation.

      Given that fuck all is going to change, I view this primarily as a risk reduction strategy that most people will misconstrue as social good. That’s a really cynical take. I’m pretty cynical about the motives of massive orgs beyond risk management.

    • First Majestic Comet
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      It only seems that way because their enforcement is so poor, I’m kind of wondering myself if this is going to change anything or if they’re not enforcing anything and just putting this up as a front it doesn’t mean a whole lot.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      If it’s a Nitro feature, it’s only going to be for new subscribers with new credit cards and emails because existing subscribers shouldn’t ever get free months or upgrades.

  • Jaysyn
    link
    fedilink
    5
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I hope that doesn’t include Twitter :D

        • Mnglw
          link
          fedilink
          6
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          its not deadnaming when its a company

          a company does not deserve the same amount of basic respect an actual person does, nor does a company have the same rights

      • Hildegarde
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        Twtich’s rules account for off-site behavior. You can get banned on twitch for the things your say or do on other platforms. Twitter owner elon is a transphobe who allows and encourages deadnaming and misgendering.

        Following the rules or customs of current twitter could very well get you banned from twtich for offsite behavior.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          82 years ago

          Following the rules or customs of current twitter could very well get you banned from twtich for offsite behavior.

          Good riddance I guess?

  • LinkOpensChest.wav
    link
    fedilink
    622 years ago

    Oh good, so they plan to actually start enforcing their policies? Because I’ve never seen it happen, and I’ve reported users who explicity called for violence against LGBT+ people and black people.

    • @[email protected]OPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      272 years ago

      Yeah, I understand your scepticism. At least, they have a system in place for enforcement now. If they have the moderators to actually use it is a different question…

      • LinkOpensChest.wav
        link
        fedilink
        342 years ago

        I was a moderator of a gaming server with 2k people. I quit modding and left the server over this.

        I’ve not once seen Discord enforce their policies. In fact, I can still look back in my DM history and see active users who have made clear and explicit threats with a side of slurs to black and LGBT+ people. No action whatsoever on their part, even though I did my diligence by reporting them.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      52 years ago

      Telling diet Nazis to go fuck themselves is an appropriate use of power, but any power can be abused. You have an underlying moral right to free expression. That’s the reason behind the first amendment. It is not a gift from the state.

      What makes Discord’s choice okay is freedom of association. Most people don’t want to deal with diet Nazis. It is fine for most businesses to exclude diet Nazis, whether or not anyone asked them to.

      But nobody would tut ‘Discord’s not a government’ if they’d banned trans-rights advocacy. And that’s fine. There’s no hypocrisy in it. You understand businesses can do harm, individually and in bulk, through their decisions. Silencing reasonable opinions, expressed politely, is almost always censorship we should fight. There’s just nothing reasonable or polite about being a goddamn fascist.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          12 years ago

          I can’t respect that libertarian attitude. It is intolerable for any business to endorse bigotry and prohibit criticism of bigotry - especially a business whose purpose is people talking to one another. How could that be anything but censorship?

          Saying so doesn’t require outlawing forums run by assholes, for assholes. Your church or bulletin board or whatever can be as racist and sexist as you please. But businesses are openly forbidden from excluding certain groups. Stormfront can say “no Catholics.” Walmart plainly can’t.