About freedom of speech

For the forum
1

I would like to express my opinion regarding the moderation of the thread Σε συνέχεια του νήματος "Πέθανε ο Γιώργος Μαζωνάκης" & συμπεριφορές μελών - #61

Everyone expressed their views and read the views of others. That, in itself, is the purpose and benefit of a group. Panos, who, as I write this, I sadly see has either been deleted or forced to delete himself, said, among other things, things that exist. Truths. He spoke about facts, but also about his personal opinion. That is how communities work. If facts, which are objective in themselves, or each person’s opinion, which is subjective in itself, bother some people, all they have to do is engage in dialogue and refute the other person’s arguments. That is what Panos did, in his own way. I had not logged in here for a year and a half after an argument, when I “dared” to question the swagger (my subjective opinion) and negatively characterise the actions of the drug-addicted Vamvakaris (an objective fact). The fact that I listen to Vamvakaris is proof that I have accepted within myself both the man whose actions disgust me and the artist whose songs I listen to. The others in the discussion, however, who want to cover up the truth, prove that they have not accepted it. I stopped logging in after that because I had become extremely emotionally charged by that whole “one against all” affair. All? All those who were speaking, because I believe that others shared my opinion but simply did not speak up. Did you lose out now that I came here? Did I lose out? Absolutely not. You heard something you had never heard put that way before. I heard something I had never seen from that perspective before.

What I am trying to say is that friction in discussions benefits everyone. That’s how @panos expressed himself. Or any @panos. You did not like it. In the same way, he did not like your manner or your way of thinking. Respond with arguments. And the whole matter will develop and organise itself. The community will regulate it on its own. For someone—whoever they may be—to come along, impose the closure of a discussion and prevent some people from expressing themselves is fascism. Five or ten people are speaking, and one person comes along, imposes their authority because they technically can, and silences the five or ten. Nor can that person set the boundaries, because they will be acting solely according to their own “subjective” criteria. We are not children. Everyone can express themselves, and everyone can defend their views and themselves. There is no need to advertise freedom of speech while practising fascism. Polished metal, with rust underneath. Every member is valuable. We cannot show them the door. There is no “whole” if a member is removed from it. Yes, that one member. My appeal is that you acknowledge and correct this mistake. If you genuinely care about pluralism and act for the benefit of the group without being driven by personal passions, show it in practice and welcome him back.

It is truly beyond my values and my strength to continue here under the weight of these actions. You understand that this is not a threat, of course, but if you do not act accordingly, I would ask you to proceed with my permanent deletion.

2

I completely understand your position and your indignation.

Regarding the locking of the thread specifically, though, I saw it as follows:

Yes, the community of discussants will manage to get to the bottom of things as best it can, provided that basic rules of discussion are observed, but if that requires a hair-pulling brawl to happen first, well, it’s better that it doesn’t take place in a thread about the death of a singer. Or at least not in a thread titled «following on from the thread “Giorgos Mazonakis has died”». It would be rather like going to the funeral —or to the wake afterwards, over coffee— and starting a fight right there: unpleasant.

Death, and recent death in particular, is indisputably deserving of respect. Even the most well-intentioned negative criticism of the deceased’s music, say, can wait a little. When someone has just died, if we have nothing good to say about them, it’s better for us to remain silent. We’ll talk anyway, once the mourning has cooled a little.

You’re now opening a new thread here, devoted specifically to how discussions should be conducted. It’s a much more suitable place, detached from Mazonakis’s death.

Indeed, for the discussion to be able to move forward constructively, it would be best to start in as measured a tone as possible. Let’s not have terms such as «fascism» and «polished sheet metal with rust underneath» so readily to hand —although, I repeat, the indignation is understandable too. It isn’t a good counsellor in a discussion, though.

Apart from that, everything is open for comment, counterargument and so on.

2 Likes
3

No, no. I’m not indignant at all. Nor am I bringing the Mazonakis matter into this. I think I’m being very specific about what I’m saying, provided one pays attention to what I’m saying. No one is obviously obliged to do so, but neither the issue nor the substance is what you’re referring to. I’m saying this in good faith. I’m NOT belittling you — I’m NOT insulting you; I simply have to tell you that I’m referring to something different from what you understood.

4

But that’s exactly what I’m saying too: regardless of Mazonakis, we can discuss internal forum matters here. Good on you for starting the thread.

5

First of all, I don’t know what followed in private messages and one-to-one discussions, so I may be missing part of the picture.

However, by now we should, in my view, have understood that, generally speaking, we don’t drive people away. A forum without people is ultimately a failed forum.

Personally, I believe that abusive language cannot be justified, even when some of the arguments being put forward have merit. We can disagree vehemently; we can even believe that someone is seriously mistaken, but that does not mean that every form of expression is acceptable.

We all use the phrase “I’m not speaking as a moderator”. However, when I joined the team, I accepted that I would operate within a specific framework of behaviour. And in my view, that applies even more when I simultaneously expect users to adhere to the same framework. However mistaken I may consider my judgement to be at any given moment, I have to recognise that I have taken on a role which requires me to operate according to a basic code of conduct.

I think it is unfair to conclude that the thread was closed because someone was censored and had to be silenced. I don’t think that was the issue. In my view, at some point the thread ceased to represent the standards of behaviour I referred to above.

When someone is attacked harshly and in a manner that goes beyond the bounds of a disagreement, I believe it is our collective duty — whether as users or as moderators — to reject it. This is not censorship of an opinion. It is, I think, defending the way we want to discuss things with one another.

4 Likes
6

My friend, Teliso,
No one “showed Pano the door”. As an ordinary member, he is perfectly welcome to continue (if and when he wishes to, just as you are, and indeed as we all are) participating in this community.

As a moderator, however, he will no longer participate in that capacity, for the reasons Christos set out in the relevant thread.

Let me also remind you that, when we register with the forum, we read the rules governing its operation and make every effort to abide by them, precisely to avoid deviations and inappropriate behaviour.

That’s all, in an entirely friendly spirit, both towards you, Teliso, and towards all our members.

5 Likes
7

No, if you look at his messages, he has “anonymised” them. And personally, I believe he did it after the moderator’s last message in the relevant thread. Because yes, the moderator effectively put the matter to rest by closing the thread, but did so out of self-interest, deciding to express his personal opinion before closing it, “remove” him as a moderator, and take away his opportunity to say something about the matter. And that is very unpleasant. Doesn’t that show you the exit door?

8

“Anonymization” is a personal choice; it is not decided by a moderator.

The absence of someone from the moderation team does not mean they are being shown the door, since they can participate as an ordinary member in this community.

The moderator takes on the thankless role of maintaining a balance and stepping in when the situation gets dangerously out of hand. However, their intervention is necessary for the smooth functioning of any online communication space, and not just this one.

4 Likes
9

Hi @anon22110369, just to clarify the situation regarding the facts. After I sent my public message announcing the removal of Panos’s moderator status, he himself asked me by private message to “anonymise him”. This is legally an inalienable right of his (under the GDPR), and we have no right to prevent or stop him from exercising it.

We have never anonymised a member against their will.

As for the rest of what you wrote, which I consider reasonable concerns, I’ll come back with another message when I have a little more time to write (I’m at work at the moment), although @alk’s and @elenh’s replies cover quite a lot of what I’m thinking about the matter.

5 Likes
10

I haven’t written on the forum for a very long time, although I follow it every day. Today’s situation saddens me immensely. I don’t want to interfere in the affairs of the moderation team; it has proved its worth over time. I do, however, want to share my impression. Yes, Panos used expressions he does not usually use, but were those expressions the reason for removing his moderator status, or was it the substance of his views? This is not entirely clear, and it needs to be. If it was the language and the expressions—and similar incidents have occurred on the forum before—I consider the expulsion excessive. Warnings are also an option. But if the issue is the confrontation between the moderators, then things are worse. It is as though we cannot accept a differing opinion. We can perfectly well coexist, each with our own views. The death of a person brought to light certain problems within the forum, which it is only natural for there to be after such a long time since its foundation. I will not tell the moderators and administrators what to do. They are excellent people, with a high level of intelligence, and I trust them to do what is right. But given where we are now, I believe we need to make an exceptional effort—whatever form that may take.

1 Like
11

It was an emotional moment, with a few fiery barbs exchanged as well. Deep down, there’s really nothing dividing us here. Panos, whether you like him or not, is an extremely kind member of the forum. He was put under a bit of pressure, had a point in mind, and, indeed, not everything he said was wrong or anything like that. If we set aside a few swear words, he didn’t express himself badly. He gave his opinion. The only thing I strongly disagreed with was that you don’t threaten someone with legal action while claiming to be on their side… Personally, I sent him a message of support so that he wouldn’t feel unwelcome and disappear.
In the end, we’re only human!
Of course, we should acknowledge that there have indeed been cases where the moderation treated someone unfairly, but generally speaking, I’d give iFood some good reviews hahaha
4.3/5

There are little cliques and friendships everywhere, call it what you like. But we’re concerned with rebetiko, not politics and vested interests.
Also, in the end, you had latched onto an incident involving Mark’s stoners and written something along the lines of “great personalities”, but sarcastically. I remember because I was the one who had mentioned the incident. Well, don’t expect to be in Mark’s house and have zero opposition! Good heart, though.

1 Like
12

Of course I wasn’t expecting “zero opposition”, as you put it. I mentioned it now as an example of how, despite whatever differences there may be, things will eventually balance themselves out without any “coordinating” excesses.

In the thread we’re referring to, the administrator writes his epilogue, poses quite a few personal questions to Panos, and his final sentence is “The topic will not be reopened, as we believe there is nothing more to be said here”. In other words, he raises questions that guide the opinion the others will form of Panos’s image, while Panos himself would obviously like to respond or state his position, and in the end it concludes with the fascist (yes, I’ll call it fascist) “The topic will not be reopened, as we believe there is nothing more to be said here.”
But you’re taking away his right to respond and imposing on the entire community your personal belief that “there is nothing more to be said here”. And you’re going to decide that? What if I have something to say? What if someone else—or someone else again—does? You’re simply telling them to shut up because “there is nothing more to be said here”? A serious slip-up for someone who is democratically superior and wants to bring someone democratically inferior into line.

That’s what I believe too, and that’s why I’m saying this. Anyone could slip up, and I think we’ve all done so at least once here. All that’s needed is an admission of it (even if only to ourselves) and making amends. Until we make the next mistake… you know, we’re only human.

13

@anon22110369

I won’t dwell on our disagreements with Panos, as he chose to leave and is therefore not here to give his side. I will only say that, during the time we were together in the team, the way we approached things and coordinated with each other had been an issue for quite some time, and we tried at various points to manage it between ourselves. It is not something that has come up now.

As for bringing this matter to a close, I think we need to understand something very simple: in our lives in general, we have certain moral obligations towards our fellow human beings, whether these are covered by a specific legal framework or simply arise from common sense.

Is it fascism not to be allowed to drive while drunk? Is it fascism not to be allowed to verbally abuse our fellow human beings or harm them in any way?

Locking a topic when a discussion has reached this point is not censorship. It is a way of stopping the escalation and setting a boundary on the behaviour we consider acceptable.

And, as you can see, you are here and have complete freedom to call me a fascist without anyone silencing you. You can disagree with me, consider my decision wrong and write that publicly.

But I promise you this: if you ever find yourself in the position of the person receiving the same abuse, we will do everything we can to protect you from it, even if we disagree with you.

Because that, to me, is what it means to be a community.

5 Likes
14

I did not call you a fascist. I never intended to do (nor did I do) anything of the sort. I described the act as fascist, regardless of who carries it out. Whether it is you, me or someone else, I consider this act fascist. Actions carry more weight than words.

15

@alk is talking precisely about your action. You started a thread, talked about what was troubling you, and no one silenced you. Actions really do carry more weight than words!

4 Likes
16

Personally, I believe the decision to remove Panos as a moderator was the right one. His behaviour towards the opposing view in that particular thread was wrong. He was antagonistic and used expressions that are not permitted.

I also believe that his departure had already been decided by him, and that this particular issue simply provided the opportunity.

On the other hand, although both Babis and I expressed the same position, he chose to launch a personal attack on another member who agreed with what Babis had written. Quite apart from the language he used in general, targeting a member as a moderator crosses the line for me.

17

But I’m talking about the action that prompted me to create this thread. And there was silencing there. Not just of me. Are we suddenly overlooking it, brushing it aside and focusing on the fact that you aren’t silencing me now? Could that have happened too? Is that what you mean? Do you see it as magnanimity? I’m asking without a hint of irony.

18

He was clearly worked up and went overboard in how he expressed himself; “poustrilíkia” (πουστριλίκια) is certainly a lapse in propriety, but I think interpreting it as “homophobia” (hostility or contempt toward gay people) is a little hasty—it’s just an idiom, so to speak.

4 Likes
19

I didn’t think you were being ironic. I’m reminding you of your usual practice. @alk told you the rest; I don’t think it needs repeating!

2 Likes
20

Sorry to intervene, but when someone describes another person’s action as fascist, by their own admission, how should that person, in their view, be described? Well, how else? A fascist. Words are not there for us to play around with; they were created to be used, in the sense, of course, that has been assigned to each of them.

1 Like