2 votes alexgleason — 2 votes, 15 comments
I don't know anything about gab but this feels so wrong. Somebody please fork Tusky.
Same, don't know much about gab or why it's gotten this reputation but this is just straight up censorship. This comment pretty much sums it up: > Fediverse was started as free and uncensored network. Your censorship is actually equal to fascism. No matter who's "good" or "evil" here — the censorship itself is clear evil. No exceptions.
The gab community has many people who are outright neo-nazis, white supremacist, and also those who are just generally intolerant of certain peoples. The Paradox of Tolerance by Philospher Karl Popper Should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance? The answer is "No". It's a paradox, but unlimited tolerance can lead to _the extinction of tolerance._ When we extend tolerance to those who are openly intolerant, the tolernat ones end up being destroyed, and tolerance [itself] with them. Any movement that preaches intolerance and persecution must be outside of the law. As paradoxical as it may seem, defending tolernace requires to not tolerate the intolerant.
I fully agree with this. Extending it: Groups and individuals who work towards demolishing democratic societies use these systems as a platform. It is a common rhetoric of them to claim that they deserve the same rights, and the same respect as everyone else while actively damaging society and detailing from constructive work. Depending on where one was raised or which literature and amount of state-obedience was consumed, there's the "Free Speech"-US-American Variant side and what I call the "Respective Speech" side; if one likes to think in boxes here. Free Speech and society constructs around it has brought us a whole lot of things which are not worthy to be listed here. Respective Speech means assholes get tolerated by law and get human rights, but that's where it ends if society works as it should work (and that's always a progression, not a standstill goal). I'm not going anymore into detail with this. I could extend but would end up with a rather long text. For me, it can be summarized to this: Ich respektiere deine Meinung solang deine Meinung weder Menschenverachtend noch sonst irgendwie einschränkend und unbegründet hasserfült ist (oder so). -- I respect your opinion as long as it is not contemptuous or in any other way hateful and disrespectful of decent human behavior. This could still be extended, but it's one of my earliest ideas (which could be lost in translation and being tired). Reading many recent comments on this side show effects of these 2 versions of speech. The way these applications handle the block are a bit wishful thinking - they build on the idea of continued brand usage by DNS name. If you regard the federation as what it is, it's alright. It's a larger experiment in self-governance and decision finding with probably the absolute worst tools and almost only direct (delayed) communication to achieve goals. gab is just one fraction of many, and I wouldn't want to be in the position of Application Developers to decide what to block. FSE and some of the older Gnu Social parts harbor comparable crowds, but they are unknown to the general public.
> I wouldn’t want to be in the position of Application Developers to decide what to block It should not be the application developer, but the system administrator.
This. I think it's nonsense to force the developers of tusky to cater to fascists. Someone can fork it so people can use Nazi instances if they want, I suppose, because that's how free software works, but to do so would be tantamount to an admission of guilt imo. Like the thing about slippery slope "if we don't let nazis use the app WHOAREWEGONNABANNEXT AHHH" arguments is that literally never in the history of anything ever have they ever, even once, panned out. Some people just don't like fascists and feel uncomfortable about their app being used as a tool for hate speech to be spread. If you have a problem with someone else not liking Nazis, I have some news. Demonizing a group of app devs for not wanting their app to be used to access platforms for hate speech is really quite awful, and saying that it makes them as bad as the people spreading the hate speech is a bad faith argument and everyone knows it's a bad faith argument. It's deflection of the highest order.
I'm all for banning those idiots but it should be a social process, not a software feature. Otherwise just block them at the TCP level.
> the thing about slippery slope “if we don’t let nazis use the app WHOAREWEGONNABANNEXT AHHH” arguments is that literally never in the history of anything ever have they ever, even once, panned out. Wrong. Radical feminists. Radical feminists are already the people who are being compared to Nazis, being censored, and no-platformed.
Radical feminists (but any "radical" group really) deserve to be called out to be honest. They have stopped fighting inequalities, instead they attack discrimination with more discrimination and a delusional patriarchy narrative. Which is to say, I understand if they are not welcome.
I disagree. But in any case, feminists are not Nazis. A question was asked, "where is the slippery slope?" and I gave a clear answer.
I think we may have had a miscommunication here. There are 2 main categories of feminism: liberal feminist and radical feminist. Liberal feminism is the popular version today. 'Radical' in this sense means 'at the roots of.' If you're referring to liberal feminists, then I understand your point. But there is as issue with no-platforming of radical feminists.
word ahead: I'm not giving any further replies on this, this is my one-shot on this and not handing out the emotional and otherwise labor for discussions which might result from this: You are thinking of TERFs. In general the position of TERFs is one of many in the larger Rad.Fem cluster. To consider everything radical to be outright bad, well, categorical bad but I give people time to grow and learn.
Is TERF "trans-exclusionary radical feminist"? Dang! There are too many factions, I can't keep up with all of them
Why are people here shocked by this feature? I don't understand what the problem is. It's the same as spam filters and blacklists, they exists to block people and bots. Perhaps the only issue at stake is that the filter should be per user instead of per instance (the admin blocks it for everyone indiscriminately)? Anyway, the admin can decide what they want to host on their computer. If they don't want gab or feminists groups, they should be able to block them, and users can take it or leave it. It's not a public service, the admin is offering their own private computer.