We published a statement on our stance on neutrality of free software (and why we won't stay neutral in this case): f-droid.org/en/2019/07/16/stat

@fdroidorg

You seem to believe that Gab is wholly composed of harassers. This is simply false.

The majority of Gab users are nothing like that. AND harassers exist on every platform.

Singling out Gab like this is silly.

The reason Gab has been seized upon is because it's popular with Trump supporters, and a lot of Trump opponents are desperate to do anything they can to prevent Trump 2020.

@jhol

> The majority of Gab users are nothing like that.

And these Gab users don't seem to perform much action against the harassers that exist on that platform - contrary to many other places on the Internet, whose communities actually do something about the hate speech problem.

@fdroidorg

@phoe @fdroidorg

There's no such thing as "hate speech". There's only free speech. You may not like some of it. If you don't like it, don't listen.

Follow

@jhol @phoe Oh no, there most certainly is "hate" and "hate speech". In fact, the boundaries of "hate speech" might be much more clearly defined than "free speech" which has always bee subject to long philosophical discussion since forever.

@chebra
Your committing hate speech right now because this offends me.
@jhol @phoe
@chebra
When people thought everything is hate speech.

@chebra @phoe

Not correct. The concept of "hate speech" is a very recent idea. Which has never been accepted in the US legal system - for example.

@jhol @phoe
Maybe, but I'm not talking abut legal definition. Legal definition of free speech also exists, yet you didn't mention it. Maybe because legal definition of free speech clearly excludes inciting violence and other crimes, which is exactly the boundary of free speech we are dealing with now.

@chebra @phoe We're not though... because Gab as a whole has not broken any laws. Otherwise, it would have been shut down by the police.

@jhol @chebra Neither has F-Droid. So I have no idea why F-Droid would be unlawful in what it is currently doing.

@phoe @chebra I never said they had done anything unlawful. This is pedantic.

I said they "had no right".
I'm saying that morally I disagree with their decision.

In the same way that it's not unlawful to lie - doesn't mean it's morally defensible.

@jhol @chebra Exactly, so they *have* a concrete right to do what they are doing. Everything else is you disagreeing with them utilizing that right, which you are allowed to do by free speech, and which everyone else can not listen to via their right to freely filter what they see.

@jhol @chebra Here? You mean that I'm on a Mastodon instance that takes action against hate speech? I just am.

@jhol @chebra You're landing posts on my notification feed, and we're having a conversation. Looks exactly like the definition of what social media is created for to me.

@jhol @phoe

Would it? So you think everybody who is not in jail today is by definition innocent because "they would have been caught by now"?

@chebra @phoe Show me where Gab - this monolith that you seem think of them as - has comitted a crime. If you can't then they are innocent until proven guilty.

There may be criminal individuals who use Gab - but there are on every platform.

@jhol @chebra Once again - not every platform has done something with the hate speakers that pollute it. I prefer to stay on those who perform actual action against them.

@jhol I have to remind you again that you started arguing with "law" yourself. I never said the issue of free speech and hate speech is about law, you did.

@chebra
quick nitpick: the prohibition on inciting violence is actually extremely narrow. the exact phrasing is that speech which the speaker intends to incite "imminent and likely lawless action" is not protected. so saying to a group of protestors, "we'll take the fucking street again" is protected, while "we'll take the fucking street now" would not be. advocating lawless action at some indefinite point in the future is still protected speech.

it's worth noting that that judicial precedent was set in a case concerning an anti-war protestor.

nitpick done, I'll go now *ducks out*

@phoe @jhol

@hushpiper @jhol @chebra

Hate speech isn't limited to imminent and likely lawless actions. Hate speech isn't harmful only when it's imminent; most of hate speech online, in what I have experienced so far, is not actually placed in any concrete time frame, not even imminent.

@phoe
> Maybe because legal definition of free speech clearly excludes inciting violence and other crimes, which is exactly the boundary of free speech we are dealing with now.

This is what I was replying to. It had nothing whatsoever to do with hate speech.
@chebra @jhol

@hushpiper @jhol @chebra

Got it - I misread the context.

Time for me to go to sleep...

@jhol @chebra

> The concept of "hate speech" is a very recent idea. Which has never been accepted in the US legal system - for example.

Neither were women voting rights exactly a hundred years ago.

So - never accepted *yet*.

@chebra @jhol @phoe Define "hate speech" in a logical, rational and objective way without using floating signifiers.

@The_Mad_Pirate @chebra @jhol

I can't - as much as my logical mind would God damn love to. ;__;

Speech and social interactions in general are too complex, composed of different layers, and full of subtleties to define these with mathematical precition.

It takes some practice and even mental composition to be able to perceive and decipher all of the information.

@The_Mad_Pirate @chebra @jhol I advocate for a world that is more than mathematical precision.

@The_Mad_Pirate @jhol @phoe

> logical, rational and objective way without using floating signifiers.

Is that some kind of "stretch goal"? Like "please go to the store and buy butter, but do it while jumping on one leg and reciting the alphabet backwards"?

Why isn't our normal definition enough for you? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_spe

@chebra @The_Mad_Pirate @phoe Because it's logically inconsistent.

When anyone tries to implement it falls appart under the weight of its own contradictions, and devolves down to the arbitrary decision of whoever happens to have the moral franchise in the scenario.

@jhol @chebra @The_Mad_Pirate

Could you give me an example of such a failure and devolution?

I personally consider a majority of these "contradictions" to seem contradictory due to incomplete information. Which is also why I want to study the full situation before I say anything, and why I'm trying to learn about the situation of me and other people I interact with on the Internet. [>>]

@jhol @chebra @The_Mad_Pirate

I've noticed that, in general case, the greatest wars happen between two+ groups of people where at least one is unwilling to understand and empathize with the other(s). It is what's going on in the case that you might have in mind - the "battle between free speech and safe spaces" that, in my opinion, is paradoxically neither about free speech or about safe spaces. [>>]

@jhol @chebra @The_Mad_Pirate Previously in the conversation I've written some text about people who aren't able, for some reason, to perform an act that seems cheap and/or obvious and/or trivial to other people - the moment other group does not understand that, for any reason, it starts requiring that the people who aren't able to do something actually start doing it - which the other party can't. And harm starts to ensue - harm which can be avoided by some understanding, insight and empathy.

@jhol @chebra @The_Mad_Pirate A trivial exercise in that, in the below text, all answers are valid.

A man started shouting at a random woman in a pub. Why?

1) He's an asshole
2) He's drunk
3) He's on drugs
4) He's been stressed the last few months, the woman after some chat tried to figure out what was wrong with him, and he got a flashback from a random hard situation.

@jhol @chebra @The_Mad_Pirate Without some empathetic insight and actually figuring out the subtleties that have been going on, the last option is much harder to notice than the first three.

@phoe @jhol @chebra Facts don't care about your feelings and frankly neither does logic or objective reality.

@The_Mad_Pirate @jhol @chebra

Humans aren't 100% facts, logic or objective reality. Humans have emotions, these emotions convey a lot of information, and that's a pretty important thing for me to keep in mind while I perceive my surroundings.

@phoe @jhol @chebra I support the concept of Mises of Human Action. As such, since humans lack what is called instincts in animals, the survival of an individual is not guaranteed by those "instincts", therefore , an individual must use his reason, based on facts and logic, to survive, and better said, to build the means for his own survival. Emotions represents only a "compass", a way for the mind to identity that which aligns with the individual personal values and allow that individual to identity that which he considers to be important for its own survival. Emotion does not provides the means to survive, it only serves as an identification device.

@The_Mad_Pirate
Interesting... so logically, since your first axiom is false, that makes all the rest of your post meaningless, right?

@The_Mad_Pirate @jhol @chebra

> since humans lack what is called instincts in animals

Do they, really? I disagree and would consider the instinct for interpersonal interaction to be the most important instinct in human beings, since that allows cooperation and therefore survival.

@phoe @jhol @chebra Am instinct is a biological device capable of automatically determinate what is necessary for survival. For example, a guiding mechanism in birds that guides them through a safe route when moving from a harsher climate to a more less harsher climate, or an olfactory system capable of determining which food is poisonous and which isn't ) . Humans do not have that, if any most automatic functions have been largely supersede by higher brain functions. Therefore, if you want to eat, you have grow that food, or hunt it, or trade it, all that requires the use of logic an reason to achieve the means to obtain such food. You need to device an agricultural system, or build a weapon to hunt that animal, or provide a good or service that allows you to have a resource to exchange for that food.

@The_Mad_Pirate @jhol @chebra Among all of those higher brain functions, it is still important to use emotions, since they are a basis of cooperation with other people. Emotions are what allow other people to feel good with you around them, and you to feel good around other people. And, while a building exists because the mathematics of its project were done right and the building work was done properly, humans as a group literally cannot exist without emotional cooperation.

@The_Mad_Pirate @phoe @jhol
Ok, I give you that, it's nice that you are capable of using words to describe what you feel is accurate definition of something. But unless you have a consistent theory, design and conduct experiments proving the hypothesis and disproving the null-hypothesis, unless you have tons of real data, unless it gets peer reviewed and accepted even by your opponents, then all you have is about as good as my definition of "Gab = bad actor". You are also a human.

@phoe @jhol @chebra
5) The woman was a cock carousel rider who tried to cock tease him and he rightfully got angry at her because of her psychological abuse of him.

@The_Mad_Pirate

Can you define "cock carusel rider" in a logical, rational and objective way without using floating signifiers? Because I don't understand what you mean by that. And if you can't, then we should naturally conclude there is no such thing. Is that how you think our discussions should be resolved?

@chebra A "cock carousel rider" refers to a female who engages during her peak reproductive window in a promiscuous sexual behavior taking advantage of her youth and position in the sexual market.

@phoe @jhol @chebra The wars happen between two groups of people who follow mutually exclusive ideologies : collectivists and individualists. Individualists want to be free to do what best benefits them personally no matter what are the needs of a collective, whereas collectivists want to subjugate and force individuals to comply with the objectives and needs of a collective.
Now what you are talking is a somewhat related picture, what Bill Whittle calls "the pink tribe vs the grey tribe".

@The_Mad_Pirate @jhol @chebra

I highly disagree with that definition, mostly because it doesn't take into account the situation of a collective versus a collective - and there've been many situations in history where two collectives (e.g. countries) disagreed with each other to the stage where it led into war.

@phoe @jhol @chebra Collective vs Collective conflicts arise when two different collectives seek to take control of the individual. In other words, those two collectives have the same goal but conflicting interests. There are several cases in history and modern era ( Wiemar's Socialists vs National Socialists, Corporation vs Unions, conflicts between rival gangs, etc ).

@jhol @The_Mad_Pirate @phoe

It's much less logically inconsistent than the definition of free speech. We simply won't ever have mathematical definitions for things like "who is bad and who is good", because these things don't have any basis in the natural world. But we still have to have something to tell good apart from bad, otherwise we will simply not survive. Our ancestors brought us where we are now by giving their best effort when understanding non-mathematical definitions. You are not.

@chebra @jhol @phoe No, it is a way to define things in a compatible way with the principles of critical rationalism and the enlightenment. Also, avoids postmodernist and post-structuralist charlatans to start arbitrarily re-defining concepts in a way that is incompatible with objective, observable reality.

@The_Mad_Pirate @chebra @jhol

How can you talk about objective, observable reality if, in a post ago, you crippled the reality of yours by removing emotional perception from it?

@The_Mad_Pirate @jhol @phoe
Ouch, now you need to define also "compatible", "critical rationalism", "enlightenment", "postmodernism", "post-structuralist", "charlatan" and "objective observable reality"... you really like challenges, don't you?

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!