Follow

For anyone who doesn't understand why the Tusky change is wrong:

It may not be against the letter of free/open source software*, but it is certainly in the spirit. FOSS does not discriminate against its users and remain FOSS, including the users you don't like. The freedom to use the software as you wish is unalienable, including for gab users.

* both definitions

That, and don't add rickrolls to your project for any reason.

@sir

if free software is supportive of nazis then I don't want free software

@ben @sir you don't want free software then. simple.

@sir is free software defined as software that the creator has no control over what code they compile and publish because nazis want to control it instead?

@ben yes. The first freedom is the freedom to run the software as you choose. If you do not have this freedom, you do not have free software. If you add to your license "and you can't use this if you're a nazi", then the software is not free software. The Tusky change isn't that but it's certainly in the spirit of it

@sir are you saying that people who support genocide are unable to stop supporting genocide and we need to cater to them?

@ben you needn't *cater* to them but you cannot explicitly reject them

@sir you are getting very strangely angry at someone who said "I don't support people who like genocide", as if supporting genocide is something someone can never stop doing

@ben if you say "I don't support people who like genocide" and kick me in the knee, I can be angry at you. I'm not angry at you because you don't support genocide. In fact, I'm not angry at you at all.

@sir why are you angry at people who say "I don't support people who like genocide" and then kick people who like genocide in the knee?

@ben it was an analogy and you're taking it literally to avoid discussing the actual matter at hand. If you're just trying to waste my time because you think my opinions render my time less valuable or even worth wasting, then I don't appreciate it

@sir the actual matter at hand is literally that someone said they don't like people who support genocide and you said that they're not allowed to say that because of freedom

@ben I'm not going to rehash this with you again. The problem is that saying "people who support genocide cannot use this software" makes your software nonfree. If you have anything else to say on this line of discussion, keep it to yourself.

@ben @sir Software should be politically neutral. Imagine if linux mint shut down immediately when you went on the wikipdia page for Communism. Would it be free software? No, it would be taking user freedoms away with antifeatures, just like @Tusky has.

gab 

gab 

Gab 

Gab 

Gab 

Gab 

Gab 

@ben I don't see any line of reasoning in your points, just spewing "you like nazis" to try to invalidate @sir. Free software is about freedom. Blatantly blocking people you don't like or even people who say objectively false and evil things still isn't freedom.

@kyle so you're saying that the nazis have more of a right to freedom than the people developing the software?

@ben If you choose not to discriminate, that's your choice as a developer to create fair software. No one is forcing Tusky not to do this but it's a bad move. That's a bad comparison

@ben @kyle Nobody has suggested restricting the freedom of Tusky developers.

@ben @sir why should my computer care what fucking political ideologies i have
@ben @sir its a computer, its tasked to run code, if you want to get rid of fascists and genocide then you can do so without the use of technology as a weapon
@ben Best give up on wanting free software. Freedom isn't something that can be cherrypicked, it is a natural right. People who spread hate have the freedom to do so but that also means I have the freedom to criticise them and mock them for it. I wouldn't be stopping them as censorship treads on freedom.

@sir
@thatbrickster @ben >natural rights
(thinking emoji)
weird how these natural rights always seem to exactly align with 17th and 18th c. enlightenment liberal philosophy
@qtd3n By 'natural' I mean they are negative rights. They cannot be granted, only restricted.

@ben

@thatbrickster @qtd3n @ben Free software is literally about non-restriction and preservation.

@thatbrickster @qtd3n @ben #itsatrap
You have stated multiple points, one of which implies abuse, which I do not agree to. Nice try though.

@CyReVolt If you look through the thread you will see I opposed the idea of allowing one type of expression but not another. This was in reference to apps like Tusky blocking Gab users, violating their freedom to use the software. I don't like Gab but stopping someone from using it through 'free software' like Tusky, etc. does not make it freedom-respecting.

>nice try though
'I find one point you made disagreeable so my only retort is a smarmy remark instead of something constructive.'
If that's all you have to offer, you haven't contributed at all.

@ben @qtd3n

@thatbrickster @qtd3n @ben I disagree with "not wanting free software", to be specific.

@CyReVolt Which goes to the point of what makes something 'supportive of Nazis' seeing as it's subjective. What you may call fascist/hate speech/whatever term you wish to use may not be to someone else. In the end you can't pick and choose what parts of free speech you want in the same way you can't pick and choose when encryption should protect secrets. They're powers for both good and bad and distorting it violates individual freedoms regardless.

@ben @qtd3n
@thatbrickster @CyReVolt @ben >Which goes to the point of what makes something 'supportive of Nazis' seeing as it's subjective. What you may call fascist/hate speech/whatever term you wish to use may not be to someone else.

The fact that something is "subjective" doesn't mean that we can't come to some kind of agreement on a particular meaning. The number of trees that make up the abstract concept of a forest is subjective, but I know that one or two trees doesn't make a forest. Similarly, most laws are based on "subjective" ideas of what's right. Your preference for negative liberties is "subjective" too. So to say something is "subjective" isn't really an argument unless you're going to throw out every rule or even opinion based on a value judgement.
@qtd3n
>Your preference for negative liberties is "subjective" too. So to say something is "subjective" isn't really an argument unless you're going to throw out every rule or even opinion based on a value judgement.

I'm sorry that I don't consider everyone I disagree with as a Nazi. My value judgement is subjective, sure, but it's less demeaning and slanderous as accusing someone of something they may not be.

@CyReVolt @ben
@thatbrickster @CyReVolt @ben I don't think there's much value in quibbling over whether someone is a nazi or if they're an Italian fascist or if they're a white nationalist etc. and to say it's demeaning to call one as the other is a stretch, since these people tend to associate with each other very closely anyway. Imagine if you're a white nationalist and someone calls you a Nazi; somehow I doubt the reaction will be "How dare you! How could you say something so demeaning! I'll have you know I'm a white nationalist, totally different ballgame."

@qtd3n @CyReVolt I mean, they do say that as a response quite often, but not because they're actually offended.

@thatbrickster @CyReVolt @ben @qtd3n The gab.com block doesn't block any particular "type of expression", it blocks using a particular server through the app.

The main promise of federation that I see is the removal of a central controlling instance. In that light, I applaud the gab.com blockade simply because it (hopefully) encourages people to roll their own. And yes, that means that blocking nazis becomes a game of Whack-a-mole (as @sir pointed out).

From there it's just another step to not putting any trust in providers of app binaries: build your own Tusky (under your own name), and you won't have issues with block lists like that because you control these block lists.

Meanwhile, the Tusky app developers are free (as in freedom!) to shape their app in the way that pleases them.

This attempt at exerting social control over Tusky app developers as if they owe anybody anything because free software ought to be "freedom respecting" is infringing on the app developers freedom to creative expression (no matter how annoying or shallow you may find it). While it's also free expression to criticize them for it, I think it's misguided to do so via some imaginary moral imperative.

(and now I'm on a level of meta-critique that's way beyond my comfort zone :-) )
@patrick
>The gab[dot]com block doesn't block any particular "type of expression", it blocks using a particular server through the app.

Which impedes on the freedom to use Gab, a service you or I don't approve of, through said apps.

>The main promise of federation that I see is the removal of a central controlling instance.

I agree with you there although it can mean the possibility of multiple controlling instances.

> In that light, I applaud the gab[dot]com blockade simply because it (hopefully) encourages people to roll their own.

Having multiple open choices, like Mastodon and Pleroma, that are easy to set up encourages people to roll their own. I don't think blocking Gab won't have the effect you're describing.

>From there it's just another step to not putting any trust in providers of app binaries: build your own Tusky (under your own name), and you won't have issues with block lists like that because you control these block lists.
>Meanwhile, the Tusky app developers are free (as in freedom!) to shape their app in the way that pleases them.

I agree with these as well. I'm not saying the Tusky devs can't do blocklists or whatnot but do recognise that I am also free to criticise that decision.

>This attempt at exerting social control over Tusky app developers as if they owe anybody anything because free software ought to be "freedom respecting" is infringing on the app developers freedom to creative expression (no matter how annoying or shallow you may find it). While it's also free expression to criticize them for it, I think it's misguided to do so via some imaginary moral imperative.

Social control? I am simply speaking out against it, not boycotting it. We'll agree to disagree here as we have different ideas of how encompassing 'freedom' is.

I appreciate you responding in detail like that. It's healthy to discuss these nuances even if we don't agree on everything. :)

@CyReVolt @ben @qtd3n @sir
@thatbrickster @CyReVolt @ben @qtd3n @sir

> Which impedes on the freedom to use Gab, a service you or I don't approve of, through said apps.

Quoting Tusky's license (GPLv3), capital letters and all: "EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."

This means that the GPLv3 (which is _the_ Free Software license) actively denies the notion that there's a promise that the code it covers is suitable for any particular purpose (like: signing in with Gab). Apparently Free Software isn't about that particular freedom.

One of the reason given for the block was that apparently app stores are rather sensitive to apps that "enable Gab". Removing it means an increase in maintenance effort for the developers (namely: arguing with automated systems that, following complaints, kick you out with only cursory review and a really hard time to get back in). Free Software isn't supposed to be self-sacrificial.

Since talk is cheap, I'll wait for the proponents of an open-for-all Tusky to run a fork that strips the offending line, builds the package and provides it on the relevant app store(s). Unlike dealing with store de-listings, this should be trivial to automate. That way handling the presumed overhead of enabling Gab (namely: arguing with app stores) is up to those who believe that it's an important thing to do.
@patrick Once again, I am criticising the action of impeding the use of Gab via Tusky (in this case). I am not criticising the software.

As we're not getting anywhere I'll leave you to vehemently defend a software licence over a user's freedom to choose.

@CyReVolt @ben @qtd3n @sir
@thatbrickster @CyReVolt @ben @qtd3n @sir I'm also defending the right of the authors to avoid extra maintenance work (second half of the post). Where's the threshold of hassle that a developer is supposed to endure in service if the user?
@patrick A developer has the freedom to make those decisions as much as I have the freedom to constructively criticise them. Software licences do not protect actions from criticism. That's all I have to say.

@CyReVolt @ben @qtd3n @sir

@patrick @ben @CyReVolt @thatbrickster @sir @qtd3n You're violating your own standards by trying to exert "social control" over the people you say are trying to exert "social control".

@ben @sir Yeah man, fuck those goddamn nazis and their rights and freedom

@ben @sir@cmpwn.com Free software doesn't have preferences; it is non-exclusive. You are twisting the words.

@sir rick roles are over 10 years old pushing 15.

@the_gayest_doggo if you don't think my take is genuine then you know where the block button is, I'm not interested in defending the spirit of my post against defamation

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!