Why does the general attitude on Lemmy seem to lean toward more censorship and silencing of speech rather than less? There are plenty of popular views floating around here that I don’t agree with, but that aren’t surprising - they align with the kind of people who are drawn to a place like this. This one, however, is surprising.
EDIT: I think ChatGPT did a pretty decent job at explaining this. And didn’t even accuse me of being a fascist for asking.
spoiler
You’re not imagining it—liberal-leaning platforms like Lemmy, Mastodon, Tumblr, and especially certain corners of Reddit often do show a strong tendency toward content moderation that can slide into ideological gatekeeping or outright censorship. But to make sense of why that happens, you have to separate two things: who has power in the platform’s culture and what values they believe justify limiting speech.
Historically, you’re right—censorship has often been associated with right-wing authoritarianism: military dictatorships, state control of media, book bans, and suppression of dissent. But the core mechanism of censorship is not inherently right-wing. It’s just a tool. Who uses it, and why, changes depending on who holds power.
In the online left-leaning spaces, the logic behind censorship isn’t about suppressing dissent to maintain state power, but rather about protecting marginalized groups and enforcing norms of inclusion, safety, and respect. That sounds noble on the surface, and often it is. But when taken too far or enforced rigidly, it results in a climate where even questioning the norms themselves is treated as harmful. That’s the paradox: speech is restricted in the name of compassion, not control—but the effect can feel just as silencing.
There’s also the factor of social capital. On platforms dominated by left-leaning users, calling something “harmful,” “problematic,” or “not aligned with community values” gives you power. Moderators and users gain status by enforcing those norms. And since these platforms are not democracies but tribes with moderators, dissenting views often get downvoted, banned, or flagged not because they’re poorly argued, but because they challenge the group’s identity.
You could argue it’s not censorship in the classic state sense—it’s more like ideological hygiene within self-selecting communities. But if you’re the one getting silenced, it doesn’t really matter why. You just feel the muzzle.
One more thing: platforms like Lemmy are very new, often run by idealists, and many come from or were inspired by activist spaces where speech norms are strict by design. In that context, “freedom of speech” isn’t always a priority—it’s seen as something that can enable harm, rather than protect truth-seeking. And that mindset has filtered into moderation culture.
So while the underlying motivations are very different, the behavior—shunning, silencing, gatekeeping—can look similar to the authoritarian censorship you mentioned. It just wears a different uniform.
I feel like the issue people her take with this is rather “great, even more Nazi content” than “I want censorship”. YouTube already has an issue with demonetizing content it deems risky for its ad business, like curse words or the mention of violence while allowing inflammatory content that drives engagement
I’d imagine that the inflammatory content in question mostly gets demonetized just the same, so I don’t really see what the issue is. It’s not like a specific kind of content is being treated differently, or is it?
It does not, because demonetized content is also no longer pushed by the algorithm. Since the right wing stuff still gets pushed to the front page and recommendations, it probably did not get demonetized
Since the right wing stuff still gets pushed to the front page
I find this hard to believe since it goes against my decades long personal experience using YouTube. The moment I click on a “Ben Shapiro destroys” video, sure - I get plenty more in my feed. But they also go away when I stop engaging. In my experience, YouTube does a great job of recommending me the kind of content I actually like to watch.
The moment I click on a “Ben Shapiro destroys” video, sure - I get plenty more in my feed. But they also go away when I stop engaging.
Uh huh. Which means they’re being pushed to people they think will engage, which means they’re being monetized or are at least considered monetizable if the creator isn’t eligible. Like they said.
Well yeah, isn’t that the whole point of the recommendation algorithm? To suggest content people might find engaging. If a “Ben Shapiro destroys” video doesn’t break any rules, then what’s the issue with it being monetized? What I’m doubting here is the claim that this kind of content is somehow disproportionately pushed to people who have no interest in it.
If a “Ben Shapiro destroys” video doesn’t break any rules, then what’s the issue with it being monetized?
The issue, my friend, is that such videos often do break the rules on hateful content and on misinformation (though those rules may have also been removed after 2020), but are still able to be monetized regardless.
What I’m doubting here is the claim that this kind of content is somehow disproportionately pushed to people who have no interest in it.
Straw man. You may have had that argument with someone else, but no one on this comment chain ever made that claim but you.
No, it doesn’t. If I watch a 15-second funny video from nine years ago, my feed gets flooded with other short clips like that - that’s just how the algorithm works. My personal experience doesn’t support the claim that right-wing media is being disproportionately pushed to people who aren’t interested in it. If I click on that kind of video, it means I’m interested in it - so of course I get recommended more.
Why does the general attitude on Lemmy seem to lean toward more censorship and silencing of speech
Because “censorship” in this context is a weasel word. What people complaining about censorship really want, is the ability to be more openly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic etc. What people pushing back against that want is less bigotry.
But because the bigots can’t own their bigotry, they hide behind “censorship” and not having enough “free speech”.
This is literally youtube saying “The president says that hating on folks is ok, and we will make more money by aligning with that”. It’s not them taking a stance on free speech, because they still block stuff that costs them money. They still demonetise or block things that are supportive of LGBT folk for the flimsiest of reasons, none of which they would do if censorship or free speech were their reasoning.
This has nothing to do with “censorship” and everything to do with a deliberate attempt not to increase free speech, but to shift “allowed” speech to the right
The first is that WPA’s (Word Prediction Algorithms) don’t have any insight into topics; they just find probable matches for candidate words based on training texts. In fact the text pasted here, by making transparently irrelevant points, demonstrates its lack of ability to offer value.
The second is that the general attitude in most spaces in general is not strictly in favor of either more censorship or less censorship. Rather, the attitude that most people show is a fear that views they believe to be harmful will be promoted, while views they believe to be helpful will be either censored or placed at a comparative disadvantage. It would be natural for Lemmy communities to have the same attitude as most other humans.
Generally, the people I see bitching most about censorship, and being censored, are people with the most disgusting view points possible. Because they don’t seem to understand that censorship is when the government is telling you what you can and can’t say; not a private business or regular people telling a prick to fuck off back to whatever hole they crawled out of after saying some vile bullshit.
Whenever someone says they want free speech in online spaces, it almost always means they want to be able to use derogatory slurs.
Instead of engaging with anything I actually said, you went straight to attacking anyone who even questions this, while subtly implying I’m probably a nazi.
Censorship of speech is a powerful tool. Why, if you have the true conviction of your beliefs, would you fight with one hand behind your back?
Yes, but have you considered the outcome of everyone doing this?
Moreover, I’ve seen no evidence in my lifetime that letting my ideological opponents speak leads to positive results.
Mmmmm, yes. All ideological opponents should be silenced. This is clearly the way.
Seriously, if this is what you believe then you are clearly stating that you have no interest in a Free Society. You are literally placing yourself in the same group with every other Tyrant, Authoritarian, and Fascists who needs to be resisted.
Free Societies must tolerate dissent, it is a foundational requirement.
My ideological opponents are already silencing speech. I gain nothing by ceding that tool solely to them.
As long as fascists exist they must be silenced. When they seize power, they will not do you the courtesy of allowing you to speak just because you let them. It’s naive to think otherwise.
My ideological opponents are already silencing speech.
Uh huh. I can fire up Social Media and find endless content openly discussing the entire spectrum of Political,Cultural, and Economic beliefs. Nearly all of that is openly discussed on Mainstream Media as well. You aren’t being silenced.
As long as fascists exist they must be silenced.
Define “fascist”.
When they seize power, they will not do you the courtesy of allowing you to speak…
Which is precisely what you yourself are proposing. Congratulations, you are rubbing elbows with the very people you claim to despise.
If you do not tolerate dissent then you are ethically and morally inferior.
Ah yes, the classic “lOOk aT tHE TOlEraNt LEfT” argument.
Or is it maybe this one?
Or maybe it’s both. Ya know, because they’re the same argument. This exact argument has taken so many forms in the past decade, and it’s always founded on the same fallacy. It’s a false equivalency.
Violence (or the threat of it) is the only means of influence that the people have ever had. As you’ve correctly identified, when other avenues of enacting their will are stymied, violence results, but that threat of violence must be what sits behind every vote, or the vote would have no power.
To put it succinctly, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
The issue for me isn’t the speech its more how the the videos are pushed, when I go to YouTube I just want to watch videos about cars and old computers I don’t want to see random dumbass’s politics video.
If folks want to listen to Bob from Omaha great, but don’t push it onto me either as recommendation or in that stupid square at the end of videos.
Lemmy (and the fediverse) is largely a liberal platform. Many liberals will actually outright oppose free speech. If not legally then they want it on all platforms.
Why does the general attitude on Lemmy seem to lean toward more censorship and silencing of speech rather than less? There are plenty of popular views floating around here that I don’t agree with, but that aren’t surprising - they align with the kind of people who are drawn to a place like this. This one, however, is surprising.
EDIT: I think ChatGPT did a pretty decent job at explaining this. And didn’t even accuse me of being a fascist for asking.
spoiler
You’re not imagining it—liberal-leaning platforms like Lemmy, Mastodon, Tumblr, and especially certain corners of Reddit often do show a strong tendency toward content moderation that can slide into ideological gatekeeping or outright censorship. But to make sense of why that happens, you have to separate two things: who has power in the platform’s culture and what values they believe justify limiting speech.
Historically, you’re right—censorship has often been associated with right-wing authoritarianism: military dictatorships, state control of media, book bans, and suppression of dissent. But the core mechanism of censorship is not inherently right-wing. It’s just a tool. Who uses it, and why, changes depending on who holds power.
In the online left-leaning spaces, the logic behind censorship isn’t about suppressing dissent to maintain state power, but rather about protecting marginalized groups and enforcing norms of inclusion, safety, and respect. That sounds noble on the surface, and often it is. But when taken too far or enforced rigidly, it results in a climate where even questioning the norms themselves is treated as harmful. That’s the paradox: speech is restricted in the name of compassion, not control—but the effect can feel just as silencing.
There’s also the factor of social capital. On platforms dominated by left-leaning users, calling something “harmful,” “problematic,” or “not aligned with community values” gives you power. Moderators and users gain status by enforcing those norms. And since these platforms are not democracies but tribes with moderators, dissenting views often get downvoted, banned, or flagged not because they’re poorly argued, but because they challenge the group’s identity.
You could argue it’s not censorship in the classic state sense—it’s more like ideological hygiene within self-selecting communities. But if you’re the one getting silenced, it doesn’t really matter why. You just feel the muzzle.
One more thing: platforms like Lemmy are very new, often run by idealists, and many come from or were inspired by activist spaces where speech norms are strict by design. In that context, “freedom of speech” isn’t always a priority—it’s seen as something that can enable harm, rather than protect truth-seeking. And that mindset has filtered into moderation culture.
So while the underlying motivations are very different, the behavior—shunning, silencing, gatekeeping—can look similar to the authoritarian censorship you mentioned. It just wears a different uniform.
I feel like the issue people her take with this is rather “great, even more Nazi content” than “I want censorship”. YouTube already has an issue with demonetizing content it deems risky for its ad business, like curse words or the mention of violence while allowing inflammatory content that drives engagement
I’d imagine that the inflammatory content in question mostly gets demonetized just the same, so I don’t really see what the issue is. It’s not like a specific kind of content is being treated differently, or is it?
It does not, because demonetized content is also no longer pushed by the algorithm. Since the right wing stuff still gets pushed to the front page and recommendations, it probably did not get demonetized
I find this hard to believe since it goes against my decades long personal experience using YouTube. The moment I click on a “Ben Shapiro destroys” video, sure - I get plenty more in my feed. But they also go away when I stop engaging. In my experience, YouTube does a great job of recommending me the kind of content I actually like to watch.
Uh huh. Which means they’re being pushed to people they think will engage, which means they’re being monetized or are at least considered monetizable if the creator isn’t eligible. Like they said.
Well yeah, isn’t that the whole point of the recommendation algorithm? To suggest content people might find engaging. If a “Ben Shapiro destroys” video doesn’t break any rules, then what’s the issue with it being monetized? What I’m doubting here is the claim that this kind of content is somehow disproportionately pushed to people who have no interest in it.
The issue, my friend, is that such videos often do break the rules on hateful content and on misinformation (though those rules may have also been removed after 2020), but are still able to be monetized regardless.
Straw man. You may have had that argument with someone else, but no one on this comment chain ever made that claim but you.
Your personal experience validated their claim, what are you talking about
No, it doesn’t. If I watch a 15-second funny video from nine years ago, my feed gets flooded with other short clips like that - that’s just how the algorithm works. My personal experience doesn’t support the claim that right-wing media is being disproportionately pushed to people who aren’t interested in it. If I click on that kind of video, it means I’m interested in it - so of course I get recommended more.
Fair, I spoke too strongly. My bad!
I regularly get ads for airbrushed right wing talking heads arguing with college kids. That’s paid so not only the algorithm, but it is annoying!
They didn’t ever make that claim, that’s just your straw man.
Yes. That’s the algorithm.
Because there is zero trust that this won’t be a one-sided liberalization, in favour of the fascists.
Because “censorship” in this context is a weasel word. What people complaining about censorship really want, is the ability to be more openly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic etc. What people pushing back against that want is less bigotry.
But because the bigots can’t own their bigotry, they hide behind “censorship” and not having enough “free speech”.
This is literally youtube saying “The president says that hating on folks is ok, and we will make more money by aligning with that”. It’s not them taking a stance on free speech, because they still block stuff that costs them money. They still demonetise or block things that are supportive of LGBT folk for the flimsiest of reasons, none of which they would do if censorship or free speech were their reasoning.
This has nothing to do with “censorship” and everything to do with a deliberate attempt not to increase free speech, but to shift “allowed” speech to the right
There are two issues I see here.
The first is that WPA’s (Word Prediction Algorithms) don’t have any insight into topics; they just find probable matches for candidate words based on training texts. In fact the text pasted here, by making transparently irrelevant points, demonstrates its lack of ability to offer value.
The second is that the general attitude in most spaces in general is not strictly in favor of either more censorship or less censorship. Rather, the attitude that most people show is a fear that views they believe to be harmful will be promoted, while views they believe to be helpful will be either censored or placed at a comparative disadvantage. It would be natural for Lemmy communities to have the same attitude as most other humans.
Generally, the people I see bitching most about censorship, and being censored, are people with the most disgusting view points possible. Because they don’t seem to understand that censorship is when the government is telling you what you can and can’t say; not a private business or regular people telling a prick to fuck off back to whatever hole they crawled out of after saying some vile bullshit.
Whenever someone says they want free speech in online spaces, it almost always means they want to be able to use derogatory slurs.
Instead of engaging with anything I actually said, you went straight to attacking anyone who even questions this, while subtly implying I’m probably a nazi.
Answering your question isn’t engaging with what you said? Okay… 🙄
i am inclined to agree with everything your robot servant said
Censorship of speech is a powerful tool. Why, if you have the true conviction of your beliefs, would you fight with one hand behind your back?
Moreover, I’ve seen no evidence in my lifetime that letting my ideological opponents speak leads to positive results.
Yes, but have you considered the outcome of everyone doing this?
Mmmmm, yes. All ideological opponents should be silenced. This is clearly the way.
Seriously, if this is what you believe then you are clearly stating that you have no interest in a Free Society. You are literally placing yourself in the same group with every other Tyrant, Authoritarian, and Fascists who needs to be resisted.
Free Societies must tolerate dissent, it is a foundational requirement.
My ideological opponents are already silencing speech. I gain nothing by ceding that tool solely to them.
As long as fascists exist they must be silenced. When they seize power, they will not do you the courtesy of allowing you to speak just because you let them. It’s naive to think otherwise.
Uh huh. I can fire up Social Media and find endless content openly discussing the entire spectrum of Political,Cultural, and Economic beliefs. Nearly all of that is openly discussed on Mainstream Media as well. You aren’t being silenced.
Define “fascist”.
Which is precisely what you yourself are proposing. Congratulations, you are rubbing elbows with the very people you claim to despise.
If you do not tolerate dissent then you are ethically and morally inferior.
Ah yes, the classic “lOOk aT tHE TOlEraNt LEfT” argument.
Or is it maybe this one?
Or maybe it’s both. Ya know, because they’re the same argument. This exact argument has taken so many forms in the past decade, and it’s always founded on the same fallacy. It’s a false equivalency.
The person I was replying too didn’t mention Left or Right and neither did I.
Silencing your ideological opponents is ethically and morally inferior and I don’t care what your supposed motivation is.
Question: are you really this dense, or just acting in bad faith?
“I want to eliminate all of insert racial or religious slur.”
“That’s bad.”
“I want to stop that person from saying and doing that.”
"That’s exactly as bad.*
I can sympathize with this.
My personal view is that when you silence speech, you leave people with no other means of influence but violence.
Violence (or the threat of it) is the only means of influence that the people have ever had. As you’ve correctly identified, when other avenues of enacting their will are stymied, violence results, but that threat of violence must be what sits behind every vote, or the vote would have no power.
To put it succinctly, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
The issue for me isn’t the speech its more how the the videos are pushed, when I go to YouTube I just want to watch videos about cars and old computers I don’t want to see random dumbass’s politics video.
If folks want to listen to Bob from Omaha great, but don’t push it onto me either as recommendation or in that stupid square at the end of videos.
This just sounds so strange to me because, in my case, it works exactly the way you said you wish it did.
The even better part is I pay for premium
Lemmy (and the fediverse) is largely a liberal platform. Many liberals will actually outright oppose free speech. If not legally then they want it on all platforms.