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.

@jhol @fdroidorg See, F-Droid doesn't like it. That's exactly why F-droid doesn't listen to it anymore.

@phoe @fdroidorg

Right... and I'm saying they're doing something idiotic.

"Hate speech" cannot be consistently defined. It is not a politically neutral term. If f-droid start trying to moderate political ideas on their platform, there's simply no way they can do so consistently.

@jhol Sure it can. "Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of protected attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity" - that's via Wikipedia.
@fdroidorg

Follow

@phoe @fdroidorg

I know what the term means. I don't accept it (nor does the US legal system, but I digress)

@jhol
Hate speech is not a legal category in the US, nor is there a hate speech exception to the First Amendment in the US, but that's not the same thing as "hate speech doesn't exist." Don't give government the power to define common language terms.
@phoe @fdroidorg

@rchive @phoe @fdroidorg

Free speech supporters don't accept hate speech as a separate category separate from simple speech.

@jhol @rchive @fdroidorg

That's the issue that I see with free speech. To clarify, "free speech" as an ideology is different than "free speech" as a right.

Words are able to harm and kill people by directly amplifying hate in people, who then commit actual hate crimes. There are examples of exactly that happening. [>>]

@jhol @rchive @fdroidorg

"Free speech" as a law takes that into account, where "free speech" as an ideology completely ignores that relationship in favor of "I can say whatever I want and it will have no consequences".

The consequences are there in the open to see - and, for some reason, they are not seen by the proponents of absolute free speech as an ideology.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

mstdn.io is one of the instance in the fediverse. We're an open-minded generalistic instance. Learn more here!