Any app on the App Store that isn’t blocking Gab or taking active measures to block it are at risk of being pulled from the store.

@eurasierboy Unlikely. It's not like web browsers that don't block Gab are at risk of being pulled from the store... Or email clients that don't filter our Nazism. Clients that handle an open protocol are fine.

@eurasierboy Also, if any of these apps are open source, all they need to do is have someone fork it, give it a similar Mastodon-client-ish name, and post it. As long as ActivityPub client code exists, that can also be used to connect to Mastodon servers, they will have decent app options available that will slide through app store approvals.

Trying to block a group from using open source software and protocols isn't really going to work well.

@WAHa_06x36 @eurasierboy It's pretty antithetical to free and open source software though. And the general concept of and benefits of decentralization.

I saw discussion of whether or not software could be licensed to forbid it's use for hate in Gagron's original thread, and that'd actually make anything that did that no longer qualify as free software under the FSF definition.

Are you really winning if you're investing time and energy into an ineffective solution that costs you your standards?

@WAHa_06x36 @eurasierboy Isn't Gab exacting a victory merely by making the conversation in this community about them? By wasting your time on chasing down ways to block them and keep them from using the software/protocol?

When we play this game, they win.

@ocdtrekkie @WAHa_06x36 Look, if Apple wants to police and take down folks that fork my app by all means keep forking, but the upline is never going to support anything that is violates the terms of the App Store

I wrote Amaroq to be free and open source and you can do whatever you want with it but I don’t make the rules for the store - Apple does, and fortunately we both don’t like nazis very much too.

My standards are pretty well maintained but thanks for your concern 👌

@eurasierboy @WAHa_06x36 I mean, at the end of the day, what you do with your App Store listing is your choice. I get it. I just don't think you're under threat of losing it from being an open client for an open protocol, and I think you may be putting a lot of effort into fighting a losing battle trying to do otherwise.

@ocdtrekkie What is there to lose? You block gab in your client, nobody using what you distribute will see gab, you're happy, nazis are unhappy. Sure, they can put in the effort to try to get around it, but at least you are no longer helping them. You win.

@ocdtrekkie To the extent that free software prevents me from taking a stand against evil, I really could not give a fuck about free software. It can go fuck itself right off with that.

Every single day of the week, opposing hatred and oppression is far more important than "software freedom".

@eurasierboy I think, If so, Safari, Chrome, Firefox, and other web browsers is rejected 🤔

@eurasierboy Huh, where did we see such a statement?

We can't let them do this, even when Gab is a horrible web page, doing this once for a service, could be it has to be legalized for all services and that's definitely a problem as it can lead to censorship.

Removing an app that actively advertise them, fine, but forcing apps to actively block them is a big problem.

@sheogorath I would happily block gab even if Apple had nothing to say about it. I am glad they do, though.

@WAHa_06x36 You taking technical measures is fine, but being ordered by a third party company that has a huge market power is a problem.

Especially when you are just an app that can be used to accesses this service but it's not it's primary purpose. (i.e. you don't block a web browser just because it's possible to open illegal websites with it)

@sheogorath Apple has not ordered anything. They have, however, shown they are willing to take down extremist content, and I agree with them that they should. I do not want to help anyone consume such content either, so I will also take steps to avoid it.

@WAHa_06x36 While I understand your enthusiasm there, I still consider it as a problem. When a court ruled it's extremist content, fine, but if they don't then it's a problem.

When Apple decides what is extremist content and what isn't while they hold the keys to all iPhone users, that's a big problem regarding freedom of speech.

And while we are both not unhappy with them doing this with Gap as a far-right/neonazi movement, we have to think of the days where this might be used against us.

@sheogorath You’re talking as if this is something new and dangerous, rather than the everyday moderation every company and every service does all the time. Nobody hosts absolutely everything unless a court tells them not to, it would be madness to do so.

@WAHa_06x36 Moderation is fine, as long as you have the choice to go somewhere else.

For Apple users that's not that easy. And even for Android it's rather questionable. They can't install a different appstore, they get updates from another source and therefore this is a problem.

In democracies we split up the law enforcement and the judiciary for a good reason and we are more and more giving those things up to private companies on the internet.

@eurasierboy That doesn't make much sense. Browsers are not expected to restrict themselves, why should a social client?
Sign in to participate in the conversation

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!