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

We know that our server is sometimes overloaded. Therefore, try this link if the official website doesn't work for you: web.archive.org/web/2019071706

Show thread

Good call. Thanks for being sane. Though I hope these political decisions will be kept at an absolute minimum.

@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.

@strypey @fdroidorg
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.

@chebra @strypey @fdroidorg

I have to disagree. Gab is a platform that allows speech that is allowed under US law. Anything else would be morally bad.

@pathfinder1776 @strypey @fdroidorg

Yes. And therefore it is possible for Gab (and/or its users) to be violating morality while staying within US laws. Which is apparently the case here.

@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.


It's the only place where racist, xenophobic, white-supremacist or otherwise hateful views are allowed to exist by the admins. Other places ban those behaviors, Gab doesn't, that makes Gab stand out and therefore if you join something like that, you are entering a circle-jerk. Whether they allow other view points is 1.) not true and 2.) irrelevant. Being the distillation of all the banned behavior from other places. Can't wash that away with some cat pictures on the side.

@chebra And this is the center of our disagreement. I dont think that banning "hateful" speech is either effective or beneficial. What is hateful is subjective, and only leads to increasingly authoritarian purity tests. The only people that benefit from that kind of system are the gate keepers.

Bad ideas need to be brought into the light and challenged. That is the only way to change minds. Segregation accomplishes nothing in the long run.


Let's not get dragged into the definition of hate again, I'm pretty sure you are smart enough to identify "hate" if I gave you some video examples.

Let's focus more on the banned behaviors and how Gab is the distillation of them because they explicitly allow them. Even if hate was really undefined, the fact that somehow the rest of the world is consistent in banning what Gab allows, clearly turns Gab into a circle-jerk. And you were the one warning against circle-jerks.

@chebra Gab does not explicitly allow behavior banned by others, it implicitly allows it because it allows all legal behavior.

Now, what the "rest of the world" bans is not really a valid measure of what is morally right. Just because formerly open platforms like twitter and facebook have changed their rules to certain speech they identify as hateful, doesnt make them subject matter experts on what is right.

First, gab is in the US and US law allows such speech. Gab is no more of a circle-jerk than is the US as a whole. Can a cluster of same-think exist in an open system? Yes. But there is a better chance of differing ideas entering that cluster than if the system was closed. This is why exclusively pro-nazi and pro-commie boards are so bad. They ban any thought that doesnt follow the party line.

Just a question. What are your thoughts on free speech as a whole?


> what the "rest of the world" bans is not really a valid measure of what is morally right.

In fact, it is. Morality is given by shared common grounds. Rules (laws) are just the minimum required level of morality. Society has a shared idea of morality, creates rules, not the other way around. Which also means rules are virtually always lagging behind morality, because they can simply never be ahead of it. This is kinda sociology 101, well understood principle.

@chebra Hmmm not sure I agree seeing that slavery was at one time a world wide practice. Was it moral? Was it right? Does that mean it can be so again?


> Gab is no more of a circle-jerk than is the US as a whole

You inverted the principle here. Cannot define part by the membership in the whole. Circle-jerk is a subset of an open society, but that doesn't make it less of a circle-jerk.

> Can a cluster of same-think exist in an open system?

Yes, and it's commonly referred to as a circle-jerk.

@chebra My original comment:
"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."

Had to do with self-imposed isolation from ideas.

When I asked "Can a cluster of same-think exist in an open system?", that was rhetorical and to which I already responded, "Yes." The difference between same-think in a closed group versus an open group is the crux of the matter.

Bad ideas like nazism and communism, need to be in the open an challenged. Not hidden in digital ghettos.


> What are your thoughts on free speech as a whole?

Free *speech* specifically is a very tricky subject. Speech can cause real harm and even a transitive harm. Speech can be used to brainwash. Can be used to control while being hidden. So the "free" part can never be absolute, because like every freedom it's limited by the freedom of other participants. Therefore yes, some extreme examples must be restricted. Especially if the subjects refuse to learn.

@chebra This is another point where we disagree. Speech does not cause harm. However, I do understand why there are laws against direct threats of physical violence. Everything else is just words expressing ideas.

Do you suggest that certain ideas not be allowed? Almost any idea can be seen as dangerous to someone. Get over 50% of someones who agree and, well, that's how bad things really start to happen.


> Speech does not cause harm

Yes it does, very much so. Speech can put you in a situation where you'd think violence is necessary. Speech can make or break wars. Give jobs or have you fired. Not only your speech, someone else's. Lie is a speech and lie is the most basic form of manipulation. What do you think gets manipulated? Is lie allowed in your view of free speech?


> 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.

@chebra @pathfinder1776 Maybe because they won't block anyone on my behalf for my own good?

Sign in to participate in the conversation

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