How does Interlocut handle ideologies that, even when expressed respectfully, promote violence, oppression, or exclusion? And how can true “bridging” happen between fundamentally opposed worldviews?
Recently, a member of the community raised an incredibly thoughtful and critical concern about how Interlocut (“Bridging Forums”) handles moderation, especially around authoritarian ideologies.
Here is their message, followed by the response I (@chocolate) gave:
Q (community member):
I am really sorry, this last week has been busy. I’ve signed up now, FYI; your answers above are well thought out and I am looking forward to seeing how the forum develops.
But the last sentence on moderation is quite a key issue which you (with all due respect) kind of handwaved. If the moderation isn’t ideologically driven, does that mean promoting Nazism is okay on this forum? Promoting genocide of any type? It’s often rooted in an ideology and can be presented with a “respectful and curious” tone.
Even if you draw the line at promoting violence, there are still ideologies which are based on suppressing or oppressing some group of people. How are you ever going to get those two groups to co-exist in one forum?
And if you don’t manage that: where does the bridging go between?
It’s a monumental, near-impossible task which I would never dare attempt, but I admire and applaud your efforts. There’s often talk that we have become more polarised with the advent of the internet, but the fact of the matter is that the internet is, by definition, the connection of an extraordinarily varied group of people with each other. A forum like this could only exist today, and I am glad it does!
A (@chocolate):
No worries at all — I genuinely appreciate your taking the time. Your message here is both generous and (in a good way) challenging. These are important questions which must be wrestled with if we want Bridging to succeed, and I want Bridging to wrestle with these critical topics in any case.
You are completely right. This is a monumental task, and there is frankly no “airtight” answer. But we’ve had to confront this dilemma head-on already in some sense in the Bridging Forums Discord server, and a kind of precedent has emerged through both trial and error. I’d call it more of a principle than a set policy: no willful and malicious authoritarianism.
There is a serious distinction, I’ve found over time, between those who defend authoritarianism because it benefited them or their people or their country in a way they’re trying to process, and those who actively and knowingly advocate systems of oppression or mass harm, particularly with malice and, unfortunately, total disregard for the suffering of human beings. Namely, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao clearly fall into this “malicious” category. Their regimes were founded upon or rooted in the systemic annihilation or terrorizing of entire populations of people. That is a line I will not and simply in good conscience cannot allow to be crossed in Bridging — not just in the sense of endorsing violence, but also in glorifying ideologies, as you mention, which seek to dehumanize others.
On the other hand, controversial figures like Atatürk or the Shah of Iran tend to be invoked by people who see them as stabilizers, modernizers, often in contexts where the alternative was literal chaos, collapse of the nation, or even worse. Look, I am not saying that the injustices they perpetrated should be excused — and I definitely do not think Bridging should be a place where dissent and trauma is silenced — but we do allow discussion or even, to an extent, admiration of these figures because they’re part of very many people’s understanding of their cultural and historical order — especially in non-Western contexts. A hardline banning of all authoritarian discussion or condoning would cut off huge swaths of political memory for people from the Middle East, Asia, or Latin America, etc.
See, this is what makes Bridging Forums unique. Very honestly — and I apologize if some of our “advertising materials” don’t emphasize this enough (because it’s hard to explain in this much depth to everyone — not everyone is as patient and intelligent as you lol) — I am not in favor of permitting every viewpoint to sit at the same table here. That is simply impossible. Rather, we try to build a space where people who are genuinely willing to exercise curiosity and self-restraint can witness and engage with each other across political divides, even if it’s just to understand the “why” behind another’s political orientation.
It does mean making judgment calls. And yes, it does mean we’ll sometimes be called hypocrites. Maybe a Spaniard sees Franco-era Spain as terrible and brutal, but a Turk sees Atatürk as a virtual father figure. Maybe an Iranian feels almost silenced if someone bashes or slanders the Shah, but another Iranian sees the Shah as complicit in their family’s trauma. We have already had these conflicts, and more are simply inevitable. But I intend to formulate a moderation system that actually intervenes when a certain line is crossed — perhaps it’s better if I say not on ideology, but more so on behavior: when someone is posting not out of genuine curiosity or will to share, but to agitate, provoke, or glorify the harming of others.
So yeah, Bridging doesn’t always mean consensus. It physically cannot. Sometimes it just means witnessing each other with clarity, decency, and even disagreement — but one where no one gets silenced by default, nor granted carte blanche.
Thank you for raising this point. I’m really honored to host you, in every way.
I share this exchange because it captures the sort of open and principled discussion we sincerely hope Interlocut can foster. Moreover, it lays out for all participants some of the more philosophical of challenges we face as an international, cross-cultural forum.
Our moderation policy does not rely on an ideological purity test. It instead hinges on behavior, context, and intention. We will not tolerate advocacy for systems built on the celebration of human cruelty, and respectfully worded cruelty is still cruelty. However, we will allow earnest discussions of controversial regimes or figures, offered in good faith, especially when such discussions are vital to understanding the cultural or political memory of a given group. In other words, we’re all about nuance.
This conversation will inform how we continue to shape moderation standards moving forward.
Sincerely yours,
@chocolate