Let me just be more explicit: if your software cannot be used by nazis then your software is not free software.
This is not the correct place to fight hate speech. Block the instances. Report hate speech to the authorities. Settle it using the existing legal frameworks to do so, and if they are insufficient, then write to your lawmakers.
But if you support free software, it is not the place to address this issue, by definition.
@sir yeah and sticking to old stallman speech as the only values that matter for decades is a very good way to avoid actually thinking. The world evolved, but not tux-avatar techbros
@gordon I don't think this is assuming good faith. Can't I be against nazis and still not think free software is the battlefield for fighting them on?
@sir no, really not. Defending free software but not assuming the politic stance leads to an extremely toxic neutrality that actually profits the oppressor
Gablins can go maintain their own goddamn fork of software that doesn't do what they want, just like the rest of us have to fork tootsuite because it's run by an obstinate twitter-licker.
You’re asking why capitalist megacorporations, for which gaining as much money as possible by selling their things is the **only** objective, would want to reduce their customer pool?
I mean, are you **that** naive??
And yes, I know, Linux is not a company. But its developers aren’t known to be caring about people. They don’t give a shit about who is using the tools they make. And that’s a problem, because it’s not neutral. At all.
@gordon then why hasn't the LineageOS team or any other open source OS based on Android banned nazis yet?
because they know it's impossible to detect who's a nazi and because they know there are much better ways at "banning" them from communicating with average users.
@sir Exactly my thoughts. In my opinion if you even choose to add friction for someone to use your software, which is exactly what Tusky did, then it discriminates against them, which is not what free software should do. If you write free software, you shouldn't really care who uses it, and for which purpose.
@ignaloidas @sir We're right in a case called the paradox of tolerance. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
@sir please stop putting your separate political stances into free software.
@the_gayest_doggo are you being serious or are you just trolling
@sir dead serious. I believe we both agree that connyduck is adhering to the gpl. Anything beyond that is a moral judgement on your part. One which in this case sacrifices an intrinsic value (owning your own labor) for a questionable utility (servicing all users universally)
@the_gayest_doggo the reason I ask is because connyduck is doing exactly what you're asking me not to
@sir not true. Connyduck (and the contributors that wrote this code) own their own labor. You are using a vague interpretation of free software principles to criticize someone else's project. You can have your moral stand, I just think it's scummy that you are trying to frame connyduck making an executive decision on the structure and logic of their program (not their license) as nonfree software
@sir what if my software license just says "you can't use this code if you're a nazi"?
@efi then it's nonfree
Note: if you think it's good killing nazis, in fact you're the retrograde nazi and tagging as nazi another person because thinks different from you doesn't prove them as nazis.
Relax, because you're going crazy and it will end up with a war between normal people and left extremists and you're the minority.
I called nazi because punching people for your political belief is what nazis do, calling people nazis because you don't agree with them is the problem here, and endorsing violence to certain group of people, as i said, is what nazis used to do, you're not different from them in that aspect, plus censoring them is what nazis used to do.
@bane @ignaloidas @sir
Punching people isn't pacifist it's the same level as what hitler did with young people who went violent to other because of their political beliefs, with that shitty thinking you're only becoming what you want to destroy.
Note: I live in a country where 40 years ago was run by military fascist, and you're doing the same, they killed all people who think different from them, you're not better than them.
@sir Your software cannot be used by non-pro users. And you always defend that. Is your software proprietary?
@xiroux I mean, they're free to try to use it, and learn how it works
@xiroux I would make the same complaint against software that refuses to start if EDITOR=vim, even though I'm a VIm user
@xiroux err, I meant to say for the sake of argument, if EDITOR=emacs, even though I'm a vim user
@sir Well, nazis are free to try to stop being nazis.
@xiroux do I really need to keep clarifying why this comparison is uncharitable
@sir You don't, but your argument is still objectively wrong.
@patrick no, I would have the same problem with that. I also understand the change and the ways it can be worked around.
Let me repost my earlier comment for your consideration as well: "If you prevent nazis from using your software to access gab, then they'll use your software to access another instance. One that you haven't blocked yet"
@sir @patrick Just because someone is able to break though a window, doesn't mean closing the door is useless. It raises the bar, makes it more serious, stops the bottom 95% of lazy people who would steal from an open house.
Physical safety of actual people is more important than adhering to a made up license. We should change the license if it means protecting ourselves.
@sir @patrick This thread goes into more detail: https://mastodon.social/@mister_monster/102293953948561002
@deltaidea @patrick how will adding a "nazis can't use this" clause to your software protect people's "physical safety?" Nazis are going to use your software even if you tell them not to. And if you think an anti-nazi clause is going to be defendable in court, I have some bad news for you. So if you fail to alienate nazis with an anti-nazi clause, and you succeed in alienating free software enthusiasts (because your software isn't), then what have you really accomplished other than a moral platitude?
Note I'm not extending this to the Tusky discussion, but specifically refuting your points about dropping/changing free software licenses because they don't exclude nazis
@sir after being banned twice for discussing about it, a lot of people said to me that whilst removing the freedom 0 (freedom to use), the freedom is still kept because you can just fork the software.
but I disagree, because the software would meet 3 of the 4 freedoms, and if you fork it you're using a different software, not the one that removed freedom 0. and on the matter, blocking instances server-side is much more effective at stopping hate speech from being disseminated.
@sir Yeah you can imagine how shitty and toxic the gab userbase is if someone makes their project non-free.
Like, we got our fediverse badbois who post all sorts of shitty stuff, but the devs were fine with that. But gab? Gab is so next level awful this had to happen.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!