>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