Should we not draw the line at "hate speech" or worse ... !?
"I've received a death threat from someone associated with the BSV community.
This person somehow discovered one of my business numbers, called me up, and made clear they would "shoot me point-blank" once they find my personal information."-
https://twitter.com/CobraBitcoin/status/1356024146413629440 Hate speech and racism become meaningless terms the more you expand them to encompass anything you don't agree with. These terms can simply mean people are fearful of a transparent debate and analysis on what is optimal.
A death threat would clearly be a reason to ban someone if it wasnt a throw away comment on a thread like I'd break your face if you said that to me in person. That kind of thing is not a legitmate death threat to me. Your example appears to be far more concerning.
I'm not sure locking threads gives the correct impression.
Why not just make sure there is a concerted and consistent effort to visit any threads making provably bogus claims or baseless claims and debunk them conclusively? Better that members are educated so that they understand themselves how to identify the truth so should they encounter the same lies or deliberately misleading information elsewhere they will know how to process it correctly.
Repeating conclusively debunked information as true = trolling or really deliberately lying and spreading misinformation.
Of course claims like I'm satoshi would require corroborating evidence that can be independently verified. Since such claims could easily be leveraged to scam or cause direct financial harm to those duped...then it would be reasonable to require evidence for that sort of claim or face a ban. The same as if you made an account called theymos-mobile and claimed to be admin.
This forum has big problems with the truth in general, so best to demonstrate that on something this important you don't wish to just hush things up, you actually want to demonstrate they are undeniably untrue or unsupported by any evidence to the point of being ludicrous. The last thing you want is for people to think we fear such claims.
It's already being noticed that bitcointalk is descending into an echo chamber on certain inconvenient matters. Certain claims should require strong corroborating evidence or you are banned for repeating them.
Another one is people rolling up and screaming trolling at independently verifiable evidence.
Should be warned then banned. This is clearly intentional protection of scammers and those that have demonstrated they are clearly guilty of financially motivated wrongdoing. To be allowed to claim it is trolling when there is independently verifiable evidence to prove it is true, is also posing a direct financial danger to other members.
The notion we should ban or freeze some members threads or speech for being provably untrue but not others is just as corrupt as anything bsv is attempting or worse.
It is very simple !
It should work like this: where there is direct financial risk posed
If something is independently verifiable as true and people consistently claim it is trolling or false or visa versa = BAN
If people make claims that have direct financial implications for other members that they are unable to prove conclusively or present strong corroborating evidence = must not repeat again until they can prove or bring strong corroborating evidence or they are BANNED.
Prior to ban there should be a clear and transparent debunking so it can be used as a satisfying and educational explanation for the ban or locked thread.
Transparency is key, as is open debate. I would never support silencing anyone until that has taken place and the thresholds stated above have been met and a formal warning with explanation given that is robust.
The truth is very important. But when the admin here permit and condone lies a defamation of members I wouldn't really be pushing for all truth to be valued unless they feel like it. In this case something may be done because it is something they happen to care about.
