@sir

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

@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.

Follow

@thatbrickster @qtd3n @ben
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 @qtd3n @ben So your basic point is that the idea of preserving freedom is not free (which is a valid point imho) and therefore Free Software as defined by GNU is not desirable?

@CyReVolt No, it is not. You have misrepresented my argument. I am no longer interested in discussing this with you.

@ben @qtd3n

@thatbrickster @qtd3n @ben 🤷 I'd really just like to understand the point. Well then.

@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.
@thatbrickster @CyReVolt @ben Since there are things that *are* clearly Nazi/fascist speech, speech is in some ways analogous to the spectrum of colours; sometimes the colour red is clearly identifiable, but people will still argue about whether certain colours count as red or as orange. Does that mean that there's no restriction in what one defines as Nazi/fascist speech? Of course not, just as I can't call something clearly green as 'red'. But the fact of it being 'subjective' is a piss-poor argument.
@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.

@qtd3n Nazis were not white nationalists, but okay. You're trying too hard now.

@CyReVolt @ben
@thatbrickster @CyReVolt @ben I didn't say they were, I said that the size of the distinction from the vantage point of dealing with such opinions tends to zero.
@thatbrickster @qtd3n @CyReVolt @ben

this is only true on technicality, nazis were basically a subset of white nationalism.

@kaniini @qtd3n @CyReVolt

the take you're replying to is so blatantly incorrect that I don't think it could be made in good faith

@thatbrickster @CyReVolt @ben And this whole argument seems to rest on the idea that restrictions on speech (even in the negative sense, and negative liberties have their critics certainly) are totally unjustifiable, but from the reading I've done I see no reason for that to be the case. As J.S. Mill himself, said, "[...] by the consideration that however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth." - and it is undoubtedly the case that in mainstream liberalism freedom of speech has become dogma rather than a living principle that is actively discussed. Why is speech special, and distinct from other actions, such that its regulation is disallowed, or the standards for its regulation hightened? Few seem to have satisfactory answers to this.
@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".

@rah I mentioned that I'm neck deep in meta-critique, so I'm well aware.

@thatbrickster
By the way: Fedilab blocks gab too. And it really broke when I tested that.
@qtd3n @ben @CyReVolt

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!