chicken

I think people saying that stuff are serious about advocating for political violence. I can't imagine how it wouldn't make things worse. Violence is a core element of fascist ideology, there's clear utility in using the attention it brings for recruiting, the trauma it inflicts for hazing, the experience for training. I remember when I saw a particular famous clip of a nazi speaking in public and being punched in the face by a masked assailant, I had never even heard his name before then, but after that clip was all over the internet that changed for a lot of people, and it definitely didn't get him to shut up. Maybe there's situations where people need to be defended, or there is need for someone acting as a bouncer, but I suspect in many cases it's some combination of useful idiots giving them what they want, or extremists on the other side who share their goals of agitating for armed revolution giving them what they want.

I liked The Yellow Wallpaper

I support and agree with the concept of free speech and the 1st (though this topic isn't really specifically about the US). But a culture of tolerance is important for free expression, which isn't really about overwhelming the "wrong" perspectives with mob rule. Downvoting all the vegan memes to make sure they don't forget people disagree with them isn't what I would describe as truth and leadership.

Could you elaborate? Does HOA mean something different in other countries?

Home owner's association; when you buy a house and it is part of a HOA, you have to sign a contract to join the HOA as a requirement of buying, which means you have to pay dues and abide by the rules of the organization, and you have to require the next buyer to also join in order to sell your house.

It sounds as if you're describing something like a low moderation politics focused imageboard. I would say you are getting it backwards; untrue racist conspiracy theories win out in such an environment, which mostly does not select for good ideas, because the "marketplace" isn't about which arguments are good or anything like that, it's about shaming and demoralizing those who disagree, appealing to people's emotions, and projecting an impression of community consensus through high volume shitposting. Despite that there may not be direct removal of comments, such an environment effectively selects against minority (at least within that space) viewpoints by making it extremely unpleasant for anyone trying to express them, and by making sure it will at least seem like there are a larger number of people mocking them.

Needless to say, there are some problems with this way of doing it, and it's worth considering ways to not be like that.

Do you think the "cost" of "being in a society" is accommodating the mainstream consensus view? I'm not vegan but I figure if they want to have an echo chamber that isn't all about reacting to my objections and the objections of most other non-vegans to their ideology, that's fine, it's not a "cost", I am not entitled to or being "paid" through such reactions, and I have zero tangible stake (pun intended) in their dietary choices. That abstraction doesn't work, it's not about paying your dues, rather it is an organizational question about how much Lemmy should function to homogenize opinions or to shield minority opinions from adversarial social proof.

While I personally value space for debate and disagreement, I also think spaces for minority views can't really exist if they are just going to be overwhelmed by volume, and they should be enabled to exist lest everyone devolve into regurgitating a reddit hivemind sort of mentality.

Because what they want is more likely to stop people with values incompatible with their group interacting with it, while still being visible enough that people who may have compatible values could become aware of it.

Maybe the way they go about pursuing that causes a mild annoyance for many other people, but I think it's a legitimate thing to want.

Seems like an ongoing trend with these sorts of bills getting struck down, 1st Amendment doing good work as usual

Even while it was happening much of the response was to try to pretend it wasn't happening

IMO this is mainly only a problem because Lemmy is small enough that everyone is browsing all and there's no realistic natural separation of users. Going private is an extreme solution with high likelihood of it just dying as a result.

Also recently got banned from c/imageai for downvoting “too much”?

My guess is it's because there are a bunch of people who hate AI in general, and they want votes to instead reflect which images people like or don't like for what they are instead of every post having a negative score.