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

@phoe @jhol @fdroidorg First of all : a) that is not a legally accepted definition, since moral relativism is incompatible with the basis of law which is natural law, b) it's not an objective definition, since there can be no laws that have to applied differently to different groups, c) it's not a logical definition, because, since no standard of what constitutes a "protected attribute" is defined, ANY attribute IS a protected attribute, therefore ALL groups are protected groups, which renders the meaning of "protected group" contradictory, d) it's not a rational definition since if the objective of the concept of "hate speech" is to fight discrimination, it is irrational to fight discrimination by discriminating between "protected" and "non-protected" groups.

Therefore trying to create a non existent standard of law applying moral relativism using as an authority ( i.e. Wikipedia ) that is not part of the justice or lawmaking branch, is both pointless and self-defeating.

@The_Mad_Pirate @jhol @fdroidorg In your example, you're using only logic, not empathy. That's why you'll get contradictory results.

@phoe @jhol @fdroidorg Repeat with me : "Your feelings are not an argument". So, empathy it is NOT a logical justification of anything, not public policies, not economic policies, not social policies. Only rational policies based on falsifiable hypothesis that allows to correct those policies if what they predict does not match objective reality.

@The_Mad_Pirate @jhol

No, I disagree.

Repeat with me: "emotions exist and are real and valuable". Humans are emotional beasts, not computers; emotions are an integral part of human life and convey a ton of information to other people, and it is wasteful to purposefully ignore such a valuable source of information and perception.

@phoe @The_Mad_Pirate

I see what you're saying. I think I am more temperamentally inclined to the @The_Mad_Pirate 's way of thinking.

I agree we need to understand people's feelings.

My concern is that feelings are becoming quite divorced from reality, and being used to drive bone-headed arbitrary decisions.

@jhol Again, I consider feelings and emotions to be a part of reality that intertwines with all other parts of it - including the logical precision mentioned by @The_Mad_Pirate.

Since they're intertwined with everything, it's impossible for me to consider reality without its emotional context, because - if we remove one source of information along with everything connected to it - then decisions made on the basis of that source will seem completely unjustified and "bone-headed". [>>]

@jhol @The_Mad_Pirate And if they seem unjustified and bone-headed and arbitrary, then it's trivial for a person to go into full-stop mode and start opposing the decision in question along with people who have made it. It's stupid, it's bonkers, it's idiotic - and these statements immediately block any attempts that would otherwise try to understand that decision with more information - including the emotional part of it. [>>]

@jhol @The_Mad_Pirate Which, again, I want to have complete information. Otherwise I'll end up with a logical system that, by definition, cannot explain everything. The holes that are made in the logical system are where we must use assumptions, and it's trivial to base a whole theory off a wrong assumption.

@jhol @The_Mad_Pirate

The way I think of it, nowadays people are almost trained by the general society to succeed via wealth and money, via social status, via company size, via contract sizes, et cetera; the fact that people are emotional beings is downplayed, ignored, shamed, and/or marked as weakness. [>>]

@jhol

And I consider that to be highly crippling in general, since it shapes a legion of people who are, by design, unable to understand emotions, and therefore prone to depression, illnesses, and suicide (especially men).

That, in turn, makes them emotionally illiterate *without any fault from their side*, and I wonder if @The_Mad_Pirate is one of these folk. (That's not a question for me to answer though - I'm not in their head and can't figure it out from outside.)

@phoe

I don't think you really choose your political affiliation. It looks like an expression of your innate personality type.

Politics emerges because both left and right logic and emotion have utility. Then a negotiation takes place that allows society to respond to the world. This is why we must listen to each other again.

No good can come of all this deplatforming that's going on

@The_Mad_Pirate

@jhol @The_Mad_Pirate Again - I've mentioned why some people are unable to listen when the other group of people throws hate speech at them. That is why deplatforming occurs.

If the discussion occurs in a civilized manner - for instance, without harmful speech - then it is obvious that it has a chance of succeeding and producing adequate results. Otherwise, discussion is impossible. That's the core of the issue.

Follow

@phoe @The_Mad_Pirate The problem is that there's no objective way to define civilized. There's no objective way to define hate speech.

And so there's no way of making discriminations like this without authoritarianism, bias, contradictions and double standards.

Which is why, even though it's often ugly, freedom is the only way to go.

Let people speak.

@jhol @The_Mad_Pirate

Sure, except you also need to objectively define freedom at that moment. And we get in trouble, just like with all other man-made concepts.

When Gab freely speaks, isn't that freedom?

When F-Droid freely disassociates itself with Gab, isn't that freedom either?

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!