Poll on the Direction of the Current Proposals

Personally, as I looked at the examples from the staff poll, I was mostly fine with them. Slightly more was censored than I’d agree with, and an awful lot fell into error margin from being ‘rule 0’. I’d be perfectly fine with a threshold of 66% (2/3).
 
Also, I’m awfully hesitant to support any censorship, even partial, because I have yet see a single instance of these demanding censorship ever being satisfied when their demands are met. I’ve seen examples of entities pushing their censorship further and further in attempts to appease the demands, and it ends up with completely ruined franchises and destroyed fandoms. I’d be willing to make this concession here once, but with most firm note: ONCE.

@Background Pony #2C57  

 
Uploads matching the keyword ‘nazi’: 3657.
 
Total uploads: 2154750
 
3657/2154750 = 0.0017
 
0.17%. Less than two in a thousand.
 
“Large group”.

 
These are all buzzwords and phrases that have entirely subjective meaning depending on who accuses someone or something of “hate speech.” The issue here is that you’re attempting to make political buzzwords into policy. You’re going to absolutely fail in that endeavor due to these phrases being entirely made up to push a particular political agenda to begin with. There’s no honesty in it. Its all entirely too subjective. “Hate speech” is basically “anything that mildly hurts my feelings or am offended by.” It’s a waste of time to attempt to revolve policy around such vague and abuseable terms.

@Frosku  
Are you saying they also can’t enforce Image bans consistently that fall under rule #5? If they can however, someone please explain how one is enforceable while the other is not. Because I’ve seen this agreement a lot and given that some Images have successfully been ban for years. It just seems like a agreement that does not hold up under scrutiny.

@RandomBlank  
Still too many

@Post-it  
No, they vary based upon the nationality/culture of the person.
 
 
In England and Wales and Scotland the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group’s colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.
 
The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A. That Part says, “A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.” The Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J
 
 
TLDR: speech intended to cause emotional, physical harm or promote segregation to another purely based on their appearance/ethnicity/nationality/faith

Accidentally voted for the wrong option.  
I guess polls don’t work well with mobile :<
 
Shame we can’t retract votes

@Background Pony #5B96  
You know when you say “nazis pretend their ideology is a joke to recruit more people”, you’re citing a literal fucking stormfront post, right? Just because the natzees said that its a tactic they use, doesn’t mean it’s viable.

if we assume the linking from twitter and 4chan that we know to have happened hasn’t made any actual bridgading/vote manipulation and then assume the total number of upvotes and downvotes on the most upvoted image ever is a representative sample of the entire active derpibooru userbase, this poll has captured about 9.19% of the active derpibooru userbase so far
 
if we instead assume that the total of upvotes and downvotes on the most recent community collab is a closer sample of the population then the number increases to 33.35% roughly speaking
 
Just to clarify, the error bars on this are probably massive. This is more of a “for fun” stat.
 
(this was as of 603 votes)

@Post-it  
That wording isn’t used in the current proposal anymore.

@Inucroft  
>speech  
>cause physical harm
 
Unless you mean “screaming in your ear loud enough to burst your ear drum”, speech is incapable of causing physical harm.

@Infrayellow
 
“Lol have this thing that a friend sent to me. What do you mean I can’t post blatantly pro-nazi imagry on this server, what’s this your telling me about nazi recruiting tactics? they’re the most moronic thing I’ve ever heard, even though you’re actually correct and it’s a tactic they use.”
 
-paraphrase of an actual cryptonazi I had the misfortune of interacting with.
 
I’m guessing that Stormfront was merely the first major group of nazis to be noitced engaging in the strategy of cryptonazism in order to improve recruitment rates.
 
As for your implication that it’s not effective?
 

 
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicalization
 
Radicalization is a known phenonemna, one that’s not exclusive to nazis.
 
 
Meanwhile, nazi ideology is SO toxic that flat out admitting your a nazi is going to get you banned or mocked in a lot of places ( and deservedly so!) so they pretty much HAVE to pretend to not be nazis at least for a little bit to avoid being banned/mocked.
 
I’ve observed this in person, your mention of stormfront, if anything only confirms its happening on the level of actual major nazi groups rather than just one offs…
 
If nazi recruitment tactics didn’t work, the ideology would have died out by now.
 
If you’re saying this ISN’T a major recruitment tactic of theirs, when even the example you yourself mentioned points to it being a major recruitment tactic of thiers, your welcome to dig up with some sort of in-depth study on nazi recruitment tactics.
 

 
 
Tl:DR you’re accidentally supporting my point with your mention of stormfront engaging in said tactics.

@Inucroft  
Also people in the UK get arrested for being funny, sit down.

@Venport  
Ecksques me, that nazi pug was absolutely trying to form the fourth reich…

@Background Pony #9806  
Simply put, rule 5 is not nebulous. An image either is, or is not, a rule 5 violation. That requires no interpretation on the part of the member of staff processing the rule 5 report. The recent voting on various potentially racist imagery had one image where the staff were all agreed on whether it was a violation or not, many were in the 30/70 to 70/30 range which suggests that actually, there is no objective standard for rule zero (if there was, we would expect most images to be ~90% one way and ~10% the other way or better.
 
@RandomBlank  
The main issue with the staff poll is that whilst we might be fine with the outcome of votes, removal requests are not handled by vote. What that means is that if an image is 40%, it has a 40% chance of being reviewed by someone who thinks it’s a problem, and a 60% chance of being reviewed by someone who doesn’t – whether it remains on the site or not will be 100% down to who reviews the image. That’s not a reasonable level of predictability.

@Frosku  
“It’s not about who votes, it’s about who counts the votes.”

@Frosku  
I can tell you from personal experience that Rule 5 is a really poor example because it is really hard to measure the age of characters in drawings, and that as a result, whether particular images are Rule 5 or not is actually more divisive than the Rule 0 stuff. Rule 1 is a much better example, and it took major wording improvements to bring it to consistency on how we treat edits.

@Princess Luna  
While R5 is more divisive, it has objective criterion: age, and subjective evaluation of it. R0 is almost entirely subjective, barring explicitly written/displayed offenses.

@Princess Luna  
I think in general if you repeated the staff vote experiment on borderline loli, you’d find better consensus than borderline hate speech (like the Aryanne BJ pics).

@Venport  
Except when it’s shouting fire in a movie theater, or not making death threats, or kiddie porn…or hate speech. Some things need to be shut down. I think nazis and racists take advantage of free speech absolutists because The idea of the right to free speech allows them and others to do and say horrible things, accumulate power, and set up bases in fandoms and communities right up until they take over with their own ideas. The reality of the situation requires greater critical thinking than a blanket statement. It’s up to us to build the fandom we want.

@Background Pony #3D95  
Please do speak for yourself, the fandom i want has unrestrained cute horses and people not trying to mouthpiece them.
 
I’m willing to settle for allowing the mouthpieces, but then people need to stop complaining about a problem that doesn’t exist.

@Boxless  
If you don’t have a problem with fictional Pornographic scenarios of ponies then you shouldn’t have an issue with fictional artistic depiction with a non hate based political bent. That’s like someone having a problem with pony porn because twilight would never let herself into a tentacle porn scenarios or futa … none of that is accurate to the character or the show. But based on your fave list you are fine with that.
 
Is not a mouthpiece, it’s fanart, that’s what derpi is for. We should welcome art that comments on social issues, allows artists to express themselves, and yes… copious amounts of creative and interesting porn.
 
But hate speech is different because it attacks people and pushes them out of the fandom. Leaving only the hateful people behind and giving them more power. The fandom does have a problem. Nazis have found a haven here because we tried to tolerate them. But they don’t tolerate.
 
 
The mouthpiece argument is crap. You just don’t like what they are saying.

@Background Pony #3D95  
free speech absolutists are way too common and confuse the fuck out of me.

@Background Pony #3D95  
pretty much this.