@steven@todon.nl @rune @purism @paulfree14 @gabriele@social.lucci.xyz
You said:
"Purism deliberately designed Librem Social to be a safe space for Nazis to plan attacks, and there is a paper trail of all of this"
I said:
"There *definitely* is not a paper trail proving that. Because it's clearly not true."
I think... do we possibly have a language issue here? Or do we have a grammar problem that is making this needlessly difficult?
@paulfree14 @steven@todon.nl @rune @purism @gabriele@social.lucci.xyz
Hey, benefit of the doubt! I'll take it! Let's assume we're all here because we want to make the world a wonderful, awesome place and move from there! :)
Let me respond with a question (I know that's annoying): What would *you* do to counter hate-speech?
I ask, because I am curious. There are many ways to deal with problems on social networks like this. And even more disagreements. I'd love to hear your thoughts and ideas on it!
@lunduke @steven @rune @purism @gabriele
eh, I ment benefit of the doubt, not endless benefit of the doubt.
I've been asking this question to see if my asumption are wrong, and to give you the possibilty to explain yourself.
You giving the question back to me is kind of refusing this.
It gives you the possibilty to frame your answer as you believe it would be fitting my perceptions, so that you can harmonize the conflict without actually solving it.