Just ban non-technical discussions?

Posted Sep 30, 2025 21:21 UTC (Tue) by joepie91 (guest, #179633)
In reply to: Just ban non-technical discussions? by marcH
Parent article: NixOS moderation team resigns

> Discussing politics, religion, money and power in general does not work on the Internet. It hardly works elsewhere but there's basically zero chance online. We've known that since the Internet was invented. Did nixOS people not get that memo yet? What am I missing?

There are several online venues where I regularly discuss all of these topics, including sometimes very intense and fiery discussions, that are resolved constructively with a mutually increased understanding virtually every time. The crucial things that make it work are a basic set of shared moral values, a mutual interest in constructive discussion (as opposed to competitive 'debate'), and effective moderation to weed out people who deliberately use abusive tactics to incite conflict (mostly just relevant in the public rooms).

The idea that "discussing politics online is hopeless" is a belief that IME is mostly trotted out when people try to avoid solving the hard problems by declaring them non-problems or unsolvable. But it's never actually been *true*, and that becomes apparent pretty quickly once you start doing serious community moderation and learn to detect the patterns of conflict. And if I'm being honest, with 'internet debate culture' now leaking into mainstream politics, it's never been clearer that none of this was ever really specific to the internet.

(We could have a long conversation about why things failed specifically in the context of NixOS, but it would just be a re-run of the last 5 years of debates and I don't think anyone would gain anything from it if "it can't work anyway" is the starting point for the conversation.)

Just ban non-technical discussions?

Posted Oct 3, 2025 18:31 UTC (Fri) by zahlman (guest, #175387) [Link]

Thanks for your perspective.

> There are several online venues where I regularly discuss all of these topics, including sometimes very intense and fiery discussions, that are resolved constructively with a mutually increased understanding virtually every time. The crucial things that make it work are a basic set of shared moral values, a mutual interest in constructive discussion (as opposed to competitive 'debate'), and effective moderation to weed out people who deliberately use abusive tactics to incite conflict (mostly just relevant in the public rooms).

I once moderated for a community that I would consider very much like what you describe. It seemingly defied odds to survive for a while on a platform where a large fraction of the views expressed would otherwise have been verboten. (Generally, things that are likely outside of the Overton window of much of the developed world, but which would not rise to the level of "hate speech" in those countries — such language and rhetoric was and is definitely rejected.) Eventually it moved on to its own hosting (I had left well before that point, so I can't comment as to the reasons) and still seems to flourish — although, perhaps unsurprisingly, the "otherwise verboten" views are now dominant.

So, yes, these things are absolutely possible. I'm not even convinced that "shared moral values" are strictly necessary, as long as people are able to express those moral values clearly and distance the argument from the personal emotions it invokes.

But, the important part, I *absolutely would not want any of it to get anywhere near* any FOSS I'm involved in. It's blatantly irrelevant, and requires upholding a very particular conduct that most people with strong political opinions are simply uninterested in even attempting.