We published a statement on our stance on neutrality of free software (and why we won't stay neutral in this case): https://f-droid.org/en/2019/07/16/statement.html
Ooh, this will be a really nice thread to feed my blocklist.
Ok, here are the rules - I don't care whether you voice your opinion supporting the block or resisting the block. All I care about is if you voice your opinion politely and respectfully. If not, welcome to my blocklist.
@chebra all sounds very sensible to me, particularly the distinction between tools and platforms. I agree the app devs have the right to code their app however they see fit. I disagree with what #Tusky did, because it creates a precedent for the developers of other software that implements standard protocols to be pressured to build in political blocks for all sorts of reason, and dogpiled if they don't. Reading between the lines, it seems like that's already happened to #Fedilab.
Agreed, I don't agree with Tusky either. A hardcoded block is exactly why we have OSS and rickrolling is just childish. I'm merely giving them the benefit of the doubt and will drop them if they do something like that again. Gab is clearly the moral bad guy, but how we deal with bad guys is what defines us. Tusky chose to get down on their level and use their methods. Fedilab and F-Droid are trying to find a higher level of morality, navigating through the maze carefully.
> Gab is clearly the moral bad guy, but how we deal with bad guys is what defines us.
This. Particulary when it comes to avoiding "friendly fire" and "collatoral damage". I posted a piece about this a while back on #LibCom:
@chebra Disagreeing with the attitudes of "by any means necessary" and "the ends justify the means" is why I joined the anarchist movement in the 90s, not a marxist-leninist vanguard party. Those ideas haven't gone away and it seems like many new recruits to the left don't know our history well enough to know why that kind of sectarian bloody-mindedness is the problem, not the solution.
Exactly. Humans have been struggling with separating the bad guys without friendly fire for thousands of years and haven't really come up with a clear simple solution. Mathematically, it's because our actions are often binary (block vs not block) but the "badness" is a spectrum. Where exactly should we draw the line? Some issues are clear enough, but others are unresolved as of today.
@chebra @strypey @fdroidorg
Potato - Potatoe. Cutting yourself off from Gab does what, keeps you 'pure'? Keeps a flock pure? You choose who to follow, so I dont see nazis or furries in my feed. ( I have yet to see Nazi Furries in All, in any case) I see this as a win-win.
I have plenty of conversations with people I disagree with. This is still a good thing because it gives me a different perspective. I am not sure how anyone thinks they are going to change minds if they hide in their own circle-jerk.
So why are you on gab if not to be inside the circle-jerk of your like-minded people? People who agree with your opinions, even support them, who would never tell you that your opinions are based on a lie... are you just hiding from the admins of other instances? Because you violated the other instances' rules by being biased against a certain group of people maybe?
@chebra I joined #Gab so I could follow people who got kicked off of twitter, so now I use both. Gab has all kinds of people (and is open to everyone), so you cant call it a circle jerk. Am I biased against certain groups? Absolutely. Soccer is not a real sport and speed chess is a sin. Other than that, I am a live and let live kind of guy.
You don't need to join gab instance to follow gab instance users. So why did you specifically join that instance?
@chebra I was on Gab before they joined the fediverse. Gab switched to the fediverse on July 4th. Before that it was a twitter clone. At this point I am on Gab more than twitter.
I mean, let me help you - the only thing that makes one fediverse instance different from another is what rules they impose on the instance users - so did you join gab because you wanted those rules and no other? You wanted to see other random people from gab in your local timeline, to interact with them more than with the people from other instances who follow other rules? Isn't that exactly what circle-jerk means?
@chebra I fully understand. Again, I joined gab when it was a twitter clone and not in the fediverse, so I could follow people kicked off twitter and who then went to gab.
Also, if I only wanted to see people I agree with, I wouldnt be reading \All and I wouldnt have found your posts. 😋
Yes you would - if your agenda was to spread the gab ideas further among other people, then that would clearly motivate you to respond to me and other opponents.
Why do you think those people you wanted to follow got kicked out of twitter? Was it because they broke some twitter rules? So you explicitly went to gab to hear from the people who were breaking the rules of the larger online community, yet you still don't see it as a circle-jerk?
@chebra Most of the interactions I have on \All is me liking dog/cat/nature pics. This inevitably leads me to following all kinds of people.
It is east to get kicked off of twitter for wrong think and twitter is not consistent with their 'rules' that they selectively enforce. Still, I follow all kinds on twitter just like I follow all kinds on gab/fediverse. In fact, I follow you now. 😎
Your logic is breaking up there. You are saying that you mostly just like cat/dog/nature pictures, but for some unexplained reason your most favorite cat/dog/nature posters got banned from twitter and that's why you joined Gab, am I reading it correctly? Are you expecting anyone to seriously believe that? Last time I checked there was plenty of cat pictures on twitter left.
@chebra No, I said that my interaction with \All ( which is the entire fediverse feed) is mostly dog/cat/nature pics. My \home feed is from the people I follow, which includes those kicked off of twitter.
So you merely silently ignored my question, hoping I wouldn't notice?
Let me try again - did you join Gab because you wanted to follow people who broke twitter rules? That you wanted to be among those people. And you still don't see it as a circle-jerk?
"did you join Gab because you wanted to follow people who broke twitter rules? That you wanted to be among those people. " - Yes.
"And you still don't see it as a circle-jerk? " - No, because gab is not a closed system so I am still able to see and follow all view points.
> In fact, I follow you now.
And I bet you are also doing that because of my cat/dog/nature pictures, not at all because you want to be able to see what I say in the future, react to everything I say, because you would be spreading the Gab agenda by challenging my views, because I quite clearly expressed I'm a Gab opponent... right?
You are proving my point, buddy
@chebra I am following you because we disagree, and yet can have an intelligent conversation without it devolving to ad hominems.
@pathfinder1776 yeah, this is pretty much what I've been arguing for decades. Especially since the recent events in my home country:
In a nutshell, as I wrote in that piece, I argue that it's as a consequence of the erosion of civil liberties in democratic countries since 9/11 that we have seen the rise of toxic enthno-nationalism and its associated violence, not as a result of too much of the wrong kinds of speech.
@chebra @strypey @fdroidorg Yeah, YOU'RE the moral ones, society has a great track record of the morally righteous making authoritarian dictations on behalf of its subjects. All you guys do is spend day in, day out finding things to restrict, ways to remove, to ban and then when no voice can be heard to defend itself, you slander them. You'll always fail, always. Keep trying to morally police speech, I'm sure that won't backfire.
@Fuzz this is essentially just the mirror image sermon to the one you're shadowboxing, one that everybody involved in this thread so far also disagrees with (for different reasons than you though). FWIW if you're trying to join a discussion in progress, it helps to build off what's been said so far in the thread, or at least the last few posts. BTW I'm happy to have a robust debate with anyone, but if your response to this post is to verbally wave your willy about, I'll be muting you too.
@strypey I really don't get this weird flex about muting people. Hey you said a thing that I don't agree with, better shape up or I'll be muting you! Who does that? I've only muted one person because he posted beheadings and I can't unsee that shit. But because I didn't conform to your preference in debate? Weird.
@Fuzz your boundary is beheadings. I have mine too. Just saying.
@strypey your boundary is the mildest disagreement.
@Fuzz this is the kind of willy-waving I was talking about. Do you have anything of substance to say? If so, I'm all ears.
yup, broke the rules of this thread, bye bye
Everything everyone feels Gab is has existed on various Fediverse instances well before Gab though of forking Mastodon I've found worse than the worst of Gab on some instances
Not to mention the three large block lists I found last year for instance admins to use to block what is considered offensive, which ranges from prostitution, drug use, and human trafficking to what's labeled as Free Speech Zones
> has existed on various Fediverse
Yes, it has, and it has been forbidden by the rules and moderated by the admin. Unlike on Gab, and that's the problem. Feel free to report anything you find breaking the rules, admins are not gods, cannot read every toot.
and others allowed it long before Gab and still do
I'm saying there are admins running instances long before Gab that have and are allowing such
I'd rather the feature for users to ban all posts from an instance to be more accessible
But Gab comes to the Fediverse and the devs and half the users lose their goddamn minds
I guess the users and admins protected in their own little walled instances never saw what has been lurking in the dark all this time
I agree the hysteria was overblown and unnecessary, even gave more popularity to Gab and polarized the users. Especially admins blocking other instances for not blocking Gab was just stupid.
And the scale of the problem is just totally different. Before if there were instances allowing antisemitism and racism and whatnot, they were small, scattered and also routinely got blocked by others, at least those who noticed. But Gab came with fanfares, everybody noticed.
and then the apps devs and the repository devs get in on denying access to instances they don't like and the whole Fediverse breaks down
Should just be left in the hands of the instance users to filter their feeds as they choose
or maybe change the nature of the Fediverse Get rid of the federation tab so toots are not spammed across all connecting instances Just let users search the toots as one can now or surf to other instance to see recent toots from there users can follow other users after only going out to find what they want to see then only seeing those now followed users toots in their feed
More of a user centered curation and filter of toots Would eliminate the random federated toots which could have any content There would still be Federation just not broadcast federation
@deFrisselle yes, it's basically a moral panic over something that we've been dealing with as a network since before #Mastodon had more than one instance. I find the coercion of software devs to politicize their implementation of standards much more politically concerning than the arrival of yet another ship of fools onto the high seas of the fediverse.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!