Appropriateness

So nzlockie informs me that home-schooled peoples are concerned about the existence of a zoophile group on edeb8.

Here's my perspective - I want edeb8 to be accessible to people of all ages. Stuff that's vulgar or sexual has no place here. At the same time, I also want edeb8 to be accessible to people of all beliefs, values and definitely sexuality. That means giving the right to people to express their own sexual identity, without actually posting sexual content. Everybody on this site has been very good in keeping to that. So porn no, but me saying I'm straight yes. And by the same token, zoophiles have the right on this site to join groups for zoophiles. So there's two extremes here - I am NOT going to make this an adult site, and I am NOT going to remove any material that is simply an expression of a user's sexual identity.

Some folks will know that I have removed material on the site before that was pornographic. But because the post was in the context of a reasonable point being made in favor of the treatment of those of a particular sexual orientation, I pushed for the actual post minus the porn to be kept. That's pretty much how I'm going to enforce this. Reasonable discussion is always welcome and encouraged here, on any topic.

So the way I see it, people who don't join the site because they might be creeped out that such people exist kind of need to realize that the world is what it is. I think the existence of such groups shows we are a diverse sites with loads of cool, unique and different interests. However, I am interested in how you think I should approach this. Should this kind of content (anything connected to any sexuality, and I would guess by extension things connected to gender, ethnicity etc too) be hidden from the front page perhaps? Should non-logged-in members see groups at all? Or should it, as I've been trying to make it, be fair for all beliefs? Let me know your thoughts.

admin: First up, can I just clarify that I didn't say ALL Homeschoolers - I was specifically talking about the one lady I showed the site to.

The key thing here was that this was a lady considering the recommendation of this site as a safe environment to have minors in. When I showed her the site, the first thing that registered to her was that group. If you put yourselves into her shoes for a second you can guess what her thought process was.
People in her position are naturally going to be looking for anything they see as overtly violent or sexual. Those are the two big things as far as they're concerned.

Personally, I question the need for us to have groups based on sexuality at all. Why have them? Doesn't this cause more division than it heals? Especially when there's been nothing close to sexual preference persecution on record here anyway.

But more importantly than that, I'd suggest that by having a group which overtly endorses a lifestyle which is actually illegal we step into pretty dodgy ground.

Personally I like the idea of groups, but if it means having overtly sexual, confrontational or racist or otherwise illegally deviant ones visible and accessible to minors, I'd rather scrap them altogether.

Possible compromises could include:
- Restricting the access and/or viewing of certain groups to adults only : Addresses the "Minors" issue.

- Reordering the groups to display only the ones with the most members or the most active members : Would eventually echo societal norms.

nzlockie: There are a few specific things you can't advocate on edeb8 for various reasons, mostly because if I were to allow them the site may get legal issues: stuff that's unlawful to advocate, stuff that advocates loopholes in the terms, and stuff that advocates terrorism. Other than that you can pretty much get away with advocating anything. I'd prefer a debate site with as few practical restrictions on what is available for discourse as possible.

Back in the 90s there was a tournament at World Schools, and I may have the details wrong on this, but if I recall correctly a Chinese team pulled out in protest after they were made to argue against China's government. Nowadays the debaters are forced to agree before the tournament that they may be required to debate any topic at all. The reason I say this is that if there were a debate on the topic "zoophilia should be legalised", I think that would be an absolutely fair issue to discuss on a debate site. There are valid arguments for and against. In fact I've seen that topic debated and it can be extremely entertaining (and the side for legalising it won, if I remember correctly). I wouldn't want to deny that sort of discussion from edeb8 any more than I would want to deny debates about gay marriage, for example.

I think sexuality is something society does get touchy about. If there was a debate on legalising cannabis almost everyone would think that's OK. If there was a group like the "cannabis supporters club", then that would be ok with most people too, I think. But a debate, or a group, on zoophilia is a more difficult proposition. Granted, cannabis is actually a lifestyle choice one can advocate, whereas sexuality in general is not ("hey, have you ever considered turning gay? It's a lot of fun!"). But the fact that sexuality is (mostly, so far as we know) arbitrary makes it a more difficult case. Just because somebody is a zoophile does not make them a criminal. But it's true that most people do rush to judgement. Frankly this particular group is not really advocating anything. It's an empty group with one person in it. But even if it was saying "Go out and sleep with sheep!" I doubt anybody would be like "OK, I'll do that then!". One of the most common topics I used to do was assassination as a tool of foreign policy, where I frequently had to actually rebut the legality thing. Still I doubt any of my debating buddies has turned into a modern day James Bond.

I too would question the need for groups based on sexuality, but it comes back to what I was saying when I first made groups - they're there to facilitate debates. Just like a Christian group may have a discussion among members about whether Catholics should consider themselves Christians, zoophiles may have a discussion about something that's a big issue among zoophiles (I don't actually know - horses are more beautiful than cows? - I'm sure there would be some, just like how there's controversies among gay people, for instance). But more importantly, even if they weren't strictly necessary doesn't mean they should not be allowed. I was a little unsure when last posting became a thing around here, but I let it slide for the same reason - not required, but not that terrible either. And I think we as a society need to discuss these issues more anyway. We live in an age that has just changed, for the most part, the acceptable boundaries of sexual expression. I think we need to take time to honestly discuss what is OK and what is not OK.

"Doesn't this cause more division than it heals?" - you could kind of argue this about any debate. Does discussing politics cause more division than it heals? Ultimately I think it's an important premise of debate that while words can be used to incite conflicts, they can also be used to resolve them. In any event, I would probably deem personal attacks on other users or groups of users to be bullying-type behavior. I have family living in Germany who are always complaining about Turks living in Germany. They're not racist at all, they're actually making legitimate points that the Turkic population has lots of crime and stuff, yet the government is too afraid to step in because of Germany's history. I can see why a group called "Believers that the Turks get out of Germany" would be probably normally deemed to be a hate group though. So I think a certain amount of judgement will inevitably be required with these groups. I wouldn't have accepted a zoophile supremacy group that bashes those of other sexualities, for example. But I think just identifying as a zoophile is harmless.

For minors, I doubt it makes any impact. This is a site where people discuss legitimacy of wars, legalisation of drugs, child labor etc. Clearly some of this is going to expose kids to dangerous perspectives. Particularly as kids grow up, it's important for them to learn to be able to engage with that kind of thinking rationally. At one point I thought about making a "kids" section of the site aimed at ages 14 and below, where the only topics you could debate were from a list of pre-approved topics, and everything was moderated to thoroughly ensure age appropriateness (and the design was more kid-friendly) but I'm not sure there'd be enough of a market for it. This site, as I see it, is PGR - totally safe for kids but I would still keep the parents watching. Any site with private messages and live chat will have inherent risks really that no reasonable parent would ignore. But these same kids go on Facebook and hundreds of other sites with far more disturbing content than edeb8 if you look for it.

Notwithstanding all that, I think your suggestions are kinda measured and reasonable. My thoughts on each of them are:

Removing groups - I'd be pretty sad to see them go over something like this. Seems like an overreaction and kind of defeats the site's purpose.

Restricting the access and/or viewing of certain groups to adults only - This would imply that there's r18 content in these groups, which of course is not allowed on the site. Furthermore, to be frank, no kid gives away their real age on sites like this. I wouldn't recommend doing so to my kids if I had any.

Reordering the groups to display only the ones with the most members or the most active members - I really like this one. Will think about it more though.

admin: I'm happy we understand each other's positions. Thanks for addressing it. Regardless of what happens, I think this post and your comments make it very clear why such groups are allowed to stay here.

To clear up one point though, I don't see debate topics as being a problem. The one you mention for example, that's an objective topic. There's no implied bias at all in the topic itself.

I agree that debators should expect to have to argue any side of any argument. My view is that there's a big difference in having a debate about a subject... Zoophilia, Ethnic supremacy, whatever, and having a Group for those people. The implication is that groups are for the social aspect of the site, and therefore having them there does, to some extent, condone or even endorse that lifestyle. Regarding cannibis, someone is always going to be close to the line, and with a significant minority supporting cannibis, and it becoming,legal in more and more parts of the world, this group might be it. That's unfortunate for them, but if you're drawing a line, you have to be fair. I'd have no problem rejecting that group if it were deemed that its still sufficiently illegal to meet the criteria.

I also want to be very clear that while this has definitely come up because of ADOL's group, this convo is not directly aimed at only him. There's no specific 'agenda' against zoosexuals from my perspective. I've been happy enough to live and let live to date, I've visited his site and he makes a compelling argument. I know I'd certainly expect to lost against him in any debate on the subject.

nzlockie: Would you extend that argument to any social features of the site? For example, do you think one ought to be allowed to discuss such issues on this public forum?

admin: It would depend on the nature of the conversation. As with the debates, there's a difference between discussing the legality of a lifestyle and legitimizing the lifestyle by having light conversation about it... "So me and my cat had a good time last night...", "Can't believe the price of weed these days!" - that kind of thing.

I'm a conservative guy though, so if there's doubt I'll always lean towards the more conservative. I don't mind sacrificing freedoms for things I think are morally right, so I wouldn't mind not being able to discuss certain issues if it helps kids maintain their innocence until they are old enough to process the trickier issues.

And yes, I realise that trying to help kids "maintain their innocence..." in a digital age is like pushing water uphill with a stick - but I don't think that means we don't try. Rage against the dying of the light and all that.

nzlockie: I've thought about this for a while, and here's what I'm not convinced about:

1) The idea that the group was making "light conversation" about zoophilia, or that showing the existence of zoophiles on the site promotes zoophilia in any way
2) The idea that light conversation is what legitimatises stuff in general
3) The link between legitimacy of a light conversation and legality of that conversation's subject
4) Given the above, the idea that it's possible to shield kids from perspectives some might deem morally abhorrent in the context of a site where users might have to advocate breaking the law

I think where we differ is in our willingness to restrict discourse to conform to moral norms of our society. This site will address difficult issues, and I see it as being pointless to allow some discussion in a debate but not in groups. That discussion goes far beyond merely protecting children. If discussions pertaining to those of a particular sexuality are not allowed, that could be pretty clearly construed as homophobic, for example. I think that if there are kids who need a more protected environment from that stuff, perhaps with more kid-friendly graphics and things, I can totally understand that, and as I said I think that's a market for another, possibly attached site. I think once kids reach around Rebekah's age they should be more than capable of handling all that stuff, so we're looking at a market of (circa) 12 and under. It's not on my immediate plans because I'm busy with creative-contest, this site, a fan site, two non-web programming projects, my two jobs, and every other hobby I have that isn't programming... but if no such site appears then one day I'll make one.

So I don't think I will go so far as to stop sexuality being discussed on the site at all. But I think I will put replacing "Newest Groups" with "Popular Groups" on my to-do list.

admin: Cool, thanks for considering it and as I said, I think this thread will be helpful for anyone questioning the thought process behind all this.

This is extremely interesting thread. I decided to stay quiet until now because I knew Jer would bring up most of my points and he would articulate them to a point that is more understandable.

One thing I was thinking about is a choice when you sign up to be disqualified from seeing any group like that. Kinda like on Twitter. That way people can choose for themselves to see it.

Pinkie: Twitter allows adult content though, this site doesn't. It's basically the same as nzlockie's r18 idea.

admin: Okay.