Skip Navigation

Squabblr now officially a "free speech" cesspool, admins removed or forced out by owner

So I mean, most of us knew this beforehand and being on the fediverse we probably do not really care, but what was always on the horizon has no happened, the owner of Squabblr finally had enough having to be a decent person and has decided that his site is now "free speech purism", so he gets to continue to insult LGBTQ people like he always does.

Seems from the comments that some other admins disagreed with the decision (so there were some decent people on that site!) and either left or were removed.

Not entirely surprising the whole thing, granted.

(edit)
Also, apologies as this isn't truly reddit news but Squabblr was one of the sites frequently brought up in /r/redditalternatives so I figured this might still be relevant?

150 comments
  • The sole motive behind transforming a three-month-old online forum into a "Limited Liability Company", which they did, appears to stem from either intentions of selling it or the reception of funding, consequently relinquishing your authority over it.

  • Since "free speech" is a dogwhistle, what should a hypothetical place actually interested in free speech as more than just a bigotry shield call what they're trying to do? Some place interested in allowing discussion of objectionable topics without bigotry?

    Yes, whatever, those don't exist anywhere, you don't need to respond with that tidbit. Humor the hypothetical here.

    • Call it "Open Discussion". Make it clear that the purpose of the site is to allow for discussion from all walks of life and perspectives, but that it has to be actual civil discussion. Outright hatred and bigotry, as well as arguing in bad faith, aren't helpful or productive in an open discussion, and as such would be shunned and banned. This way, you can still have opinions that aren't "mainstream", but you won't be removed as long as you're civil and respectful about it. Doing this will attract people who are really interested in hearing other perspectives and sharing their own, instead of alt-right shitheads looking for another place to infest.

      • This way, you can still have opinions that aren't "mainstream", but you won't be removed as long as you're civil and respectful about it.

        I mean, you sort of identified the problem, but still missed it. It isn't "mainstream" because we're taking about marginalized minority groups. It can only be seen as leaning mainstream because LGBTQ+ have a lot of allies that don't fall under that identity, but it still falls short of actually being mainstream and short of a supporting majority.

        Think about the numbers this way; you have LGBTQ+ (or some other minority group), allies, "don't cares," "don't want to knows," and bigots. We think we know the bigots, those are the haters. What is surprising to most is that the "don't want to knows" are the biggest faction of bigots, although it is an indirect association.

        A common transition for the "don't want to knows" is saying, "I'm tired of hearing from those Zorb snowflakes only, the other side should be heard as well -- free speech. We should have an open discussion."

        This suggestion, while it sounds positive, enables those who want to troll and slander, and they get to do so behind anonymity and with the support of others. For the bigot which openly expresses a hatred for Zorbs and Narfs, they just been given an umbrella of protection under "free speech" to say hurtful things. -- Oh, blatant hate speech itself is still considered a violation of TOS? -- Good luck trying to moderate an influx of alt accounts which just stoke up the problem by saying, "The Zorbs and Narfs are taking over." "It might be an unpopular opinion, but non-Zorbs and Narfs need a voice too." "What Zorbs and Narfs practice is against the teachings of The Great Plunis." "Plunis said that the Zorbs and Narfs are immoral." "Zorbs and Narfs are stripping away our Constitutional rights." "Even taking about Zorbs and Narfs in our schools might trick our kids into supporting or even becoming Narfs themselves. Think of the kids."

        Now telling a bigot that they can't offend others isn't hurting them. Giving them a platform where they can be safe to constantly etch away at human decency of marginalized groups is a platform too high, especially when it provides an opportunity to express their vile dislike of a group of people that are somehow different than them with a different perspective of the world.

        So how about those Zorbs? From their perspective, anyone might be threatening to them and might want to cause them harm. How can a Narf recognize that someone else is a Zorb, a Narf, an ally, a "don't care," a "don't want to know," or an outright bigot? As a group of people already in a minority, they need safe spaces to find others they can identify with or who support them, so that they can openly discuss the social challenges they face daily. It isn't a debate, these are challenges and problems they gave daily. If a social forum which seemed to offer that sort of protected space suddenly changes their TOS in support of "free speech," and the maintainer of the site declares that they want to encourage discussion and multi-sided debate, that safe space has just been ransacked. Whereas the community they had joined was reserved for peers and allies, that may no longer be the case and those bigots can still be threatening even if they don't come out and directly say "I hate you."

        There aren't two sides to an "I am a Zorb," and "I can't stand Zorbs" debate. It isn't the same as one side saying "I like tomatoes," and another side saying "tomatoes are disgusting," it is more like the debate about being Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life... It isn't as though the Pro-Choice folks are Anti-Life, but the Pro-Life folks are very much Anti-Choice. The sides of the debate can't even agree about what they are against.

        So, as an ally, and someone who really liked squabbles.io a month ago, because it felt like a positive community, I'm disgusted with the changes made this past week. As far as I'm concerned, squabbles.io should have replaced their logo as they did, but they should have replaced Bort with a giant red tomato, to really emphasize how vile and disgusting the site has become.

    • It's hard to find a name because nowadays people often use terms like 'bigotry', 'hate speech' and 'bad faith' to refer to anything they don't like so they can shut down discussions.

    • A forum? (Online this means a specific type of website architecture though, so idk.)

    • Frankly I'm just wondering how we let "free speech" become a dogwhistle. Is water in a bottle a dogwhistle because trump drank one one time on video (with two hands, remember that scandal?) Is coffee a dogwhistle because racist people also drink coffee? Not everything is a "dogwhistle" nor should it be considered as such simply because the words "free speech platform" are used instead of "non-censorious communication service." Tipper Gore and her Moral Majority have been fighting free speech since Jello Biafra used an H. R. Geiger painting on a record insert she bought her kid, I've been complaining about censorship since she got "Parental Advisory" slapped on CDs limiting my ability to sneak music past my overbearing mother as a child (mostly seditious music, anto-religious music, or music by POC, mind you, which is racism), I've been bitching about radio beeps and edits since I can remember, free speech has always been a highly regarded value of mine and I'm not going to let those people steal it or their enemies bully me out of supporting it.

      • It's because shit-heads love to hide behind objectively good ideals. They want to deflect criticism of what they're saying or doing into criticism of the ideal. "Oh, you hate free speech!?"

        It's coded language in the right context -- "free speech platform" with a wink and a nod.

        See also: "Patriot", "protecting children", "thugs", etc.

    • You don't need to label it. The vast majority of the internet will allow anyone acting in good faith to discuss their ideas. Every single time someone complains about being muted/silences/shadow-banned etc you can bet they subscribe to right-wing ideology using dog whistles or other hateful rhetoric. I was never banned anywhere for being Pro-Hillary instead of Pro-Bernie. I was downvoted sure, but that's everyone elses prerogative. I wasn't silences because some of my posts were hidden due to it. It's asinine to claim that, and that's what these people are whining about.

  • IMO if sites want to take a "free speech" approach without allowing bigots, maybe they should adopt the Canadian law. We don't have free speech, we have what's known as "freedom of expression". Essentially, we can say whatever unless it's hate speech or bigoted.

    Yeah, Canada has censorship, but it's essentially just to censor racist idiots and homophobic fools.

    • A way to improve it further is to see freedom of speech as quantitative, try to maximise it for all parties involved, and look at the consequences of banning a certain discourse or not.

      Using hate speech as an example:

      • if you forbid it, you're lowering a bit the freedom of speech of those who'd otherwise voice it. It's only a bit because they're still allowed to voice non-hateful discourses there.
      • if you allow it, you're lowering a lot the freedom of speech of those who'd be targeted by it. It's a lot because they'll disengage and leave.

      So by banning hate speech you're actually increasing the overall freedom of speech, even if reducing it a bit for a certain audience.

      The same reasoning applies towards other situations. Like "that fucking user" doing the online equivalent of megaphoning so nobody else is heard; misplaced porn, gore, or other things that a lot of people would rather not see; harassment (it is performative speech, and yet you need to prevent it).

      I feel like this covers what you've linked about freedom of expression in Canada, but it's a bit more practical and flexible to adapt into online communities.

      Also, it's important to take into account that there's a hierarchy between discourses, when trying to maximise freedom of speech: descriptive > prescriptive > performative.

      • if you allow it, you’re lowering a lot the freedom of speech of those who’d be targeted by it. It’s a lot because they’ll disengage and leave

        I disagree that this is lowering free speech. Those people who leave are still entirely within their ability to stay and continue speaking. Free speech isn't lesser just because someone doesn't feel like speaking

  • I used the site for a bit. It had some serious potential as a reddit alternative, and was poised perfectly to reap the benefits of a mass exodus. Of course, I used it when it was called Squabbles less than a week ago, before the cringy name change to drop a vowel to be more like the websites from the early 2010's. I think the biggest hurdle for them was that they were a .io domain and couldn't host pornographic material, so the porn subreddits couldn't use the platform even if they wanted to. I think they recently switched to .co, so that might change, who knows.

    I'm not sure I agree with the owner's top-down approach to website design and management. I had no idea about his anti-LGBTQ opinions until now, but that's one more reason to not to continue using it, aside from the fact that growth is basically reversing and very little OC is being posted.

    When I hear "free speech purism", I immediately think that either the person/people who want that don't know the dark forces they are inviting, or worse, they do know and they want it to happen. Neither of those are a good look. Some speech absolutely should be banned from these websites for obvious reasons. People who conflate freedom of speech for consequence-free speech are idiots who deserve to be banned from everything everywhere.

150 comments