5 ms·

> “Moving to the ActivityPub protocol as our base allows us to get into mobile App Stores without even having to submit and get approval of our own apps, whethe

• phoe-krk 7y ago
  > Now I wonder if mastodon client app developers will start filtering the allowed servers users can put in... This is not the duty of client applications. Banning instances is the duty of the operators of individual instances, and the instance(s) on which you have your account(s) are the instance(s) whose blocking policy affects you. This is a feature. Most sane instances on the Fediverse already ban extremist and alt-right content, and Gab will be no different in that case - just another entry on the blacklist, next to https://freespeechextremist.com/ https://freespeechextremist.com/ and https://rapefeminists.network https://rapefeminists.network and other instances who shamelessly abuse the right to free speech.
  • scohesc 7y ago
    I wouldn't say they're abusing the right to free speech, they're taking full advantage of it. If you don't like what they're saying, you have every right to not listen to it, promote it yourself, and you also have the right to start a movement to let people know this is going on and to bring awareness to the festering shitpiles those websites are. It's not an abuse of the right to free speech.
    • phoe-krk 7y ago
      Many people come to a conclusion that that the classical definition of free speech is easily abusable when enough people gather and utilize free speech to promote hatred, closed-mindedness and bigotry. Thanks to free speech instances we get hoaxes like the ones that way 5G is a mortal danger, vaccines are a mortal danger, women, Muslims, Jews and people of color are despicable, and many other interesting "100% verified truths and facts". I know that the perfect solution for this problem does not conflict with free speech, but if that perfect solution (whatever it is) doesn't come soon enough, the world will get fed up with waiting and implement imperfect solutions, and limiting free speech is first on that list.
      • rmtech 7y ago
        > classical definition of free speech is easily abusable the classical definition of unfree speech is easily abusable, which is why free speech exists. If an idea is bad, the best way to beat it is with better ideas. Of course some bad ideas are good at spreading, or otherwise persuasive. But if you take the big picture view, the vast majority of really bad ideas and statements have been imposed centrally and have persisted by latching onto the levers of censorship and censoring all competing viewpoints. The level of censorship and central control of information is already far too high in our world.
        • DanBC 7y ago
          > which is why free speech exists. Where?
          • antepodius 7y ago
            As an idea and ideal. In practice- to greater and lesser degrees, with varying overton windows, in different places.
            • rmtech 7y ago
              yes that's what I meant. The concept of free speech.
    • ptah 7y ago
      using free speech to agitate for removing life and freedoms from whole groups of people is abuse
      • tastygreenapple 7y ago
        yeah, but only if everyone agrees on what constitutes rights and freedom. Is the BDS movement abusing or using their rights to free speech?
        • ptah 7y ago
          AFAIK they are fighting for the right to live of palestinians
          • tastygreenapple 7y ago
            And fighting against that same right for those subject to the boycott. Let's flip this around - if I started a movement to Boycott, divest, and sanction palestinians would my speech create real world harm?
  • r3bl 7y ago
    > This is not the duty of client applications. It might become their duty. Since Gab's apps are banned, and those apps would be used to access Gab's servers, I could see Apple/Google blocking Mastodon apps as well. App creators might be forced to ban Gab in order to avoid getting banned from the app stores.
    • phoe-krk 7y ago
      I wholeheartedly hope that this ban will not be limited to the AP protocol. gab is also available through HTTPS, and so popular HTTPS clients, such as Chrome, Firefox, Opera and Safari will also be forced to implement the blacklist. /s
    • tlrobinson 7y ago
      That would be a fairly absurd position for the app stores to take, given that the exact same argument could be made about web browsers. I don’t think we should be advocating for app stores to exert any more control over generic client software than they already have.
    • lwhalen 7y ago
      It's trivial to use a Mastodon instance via a web browser. Are Firefox, Chrome, et al, going to be banned from app stores as well if they don't implement morality policing?
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • robobro 7y ago
    WAHA, brain behind a major Mastodon app, has claimed they're blocking Gab in his client and that users can't unblock Gab. As a free software guy, this troubles me. This is on par with firefox deciding which websites they should block. (In fact the Oculus Browser blocks 4chan / 8ch / other sites)
    • phoe-krk 7y ago
      Use free software instead, change it as you please, and build it yourself. WAHA's client is not free and they can do as they please with it.
• 0815test 7y ago
  Surely there will be some client apps on F-Droid (and 'fringe' ones on iOS) that won't include any such restrictions. But I agree that the most popular apps might be highly tempted to enforce them, out of image concerns.
• r3bl 7y ago
  > Now I wonder if mastodon client app developers will start filtering the allowed servers users can put in... That's precisely what Mastodon's creator suggested earlier today: https://mastodon.social/@Gargron/102184195834215862 https://mastodon.social/@Gargron/102184195834215862 Of course, he has no authority over mobile apps, so it remains up to app creators to decide. I believe there are three apps that share the majority of users (Fedilab, Tusky, Mast). Most popular instances will probably stop federating with them as soon as they can. EDIT: Fedilab's creator already expressed that he'll do so to avoid the chance of being banned from the app store.
  • balaksakrionon 7y ago
    Would it be possibly to camoflauge a gab instance as if it were a mastodon instance for the purposes of federation? It probably wouldn't stand up to the scrutiny of a follow up human review, it would bypass the federation block.
    • scohesc 7y ago
      I'm sure there will be a sort of "Gab Relay" similar to how the PirateBay avoids domain takedowns by using multiple domains/proxies.
  • zimpenfish 7y ago
    Toot! is going to block them. https://mastodon.social/users/tootapp/statuses/102185365923885685 https://mastodon.social/users/tootapp/statuses/1021853659238... > In case anyone was wondering due to recent discourse, Toot! will be blocking any gab domains. > I do not support white supremacy and hatred, and will never support any server that promotes it.
• pgeorgi 7y ago
  > Now I wonder if mastodon client app developers will start filtering the allowed servers users can put in... Any action of that kind would only fuel the alt-right persecution complex. Servers however do filtering all the time already, and that's how the Gab folks can be left out of view of the rest of the world.
  • TheCapeGreek 7y ago
    Mastodon server instances already have blocked lists of "banned" instances. There's also a common ban list on github, so new server admins can join the federation in a "normal" way. The ban list has some pretty messed up instances it rightfully bans, but they either tend to be illegal or far-right. Far-left content is spread and encouraged. Note: I'm not trying to take a side in this, and I don't try to identify with any particular "faction" in the federation space.
    • pgeorgi 7y ago
      >> Servers however do filtering all the time already > Mastodon server instances already have blocked lists of "banned" instances. well, yes.
• loceng 7y ago
  The conclusion I always seem to come to is you eventually want to be able to trust those within your network. I believe that requires some level of initial openness to prove who you are to a personally selected authority you decide to trust, who can verify your identity, and then allow you to communicate/engage with your real name or one-to-many pseudonyms, so if your actions are outside whatever rules exist for that network are violated then you could get a temporary timeout ("sit in the corner and think about what you did"), to permanent ban, to if it is considered criminal by society then reporting the person to appropriate authorities; we can't have inherent fear and distrust a chain of command, there is good in the world - we of course must stand strong, strongly together, and stand guard in order to fight against abuse of power, inauthentic behaviour - and so on - in chain of commands. How will users of the Gab network know if it is INSERT_NATION_NAME agents, paid and incentivized to manipulate them and cause unrest in a societal structure we call democracy? Perhaps they're not even thinking or caring about it and its consequences, perhaps they're even simply happy they have a helping hand? From what we've seen it takes very few bad actors to infiltrate a nation's foundational structures once the atmosphere of a population is disenfranchised enough, once we're disconnected and disengaged enough, and that has been accelerated by the cheap economies of scale the internet has afforded. At the end what I hope for is that security services of democracies are being intelligent and allocating resources to fully and carefully infiltrating these groups (carefully as to not escalate the situation) to know who those who are involved is: this of course comes down to potential overreach, which must be addressed not because you may more easily know/discover who bad actors are - but because it may be bad actors who actually someday may get hold or access to these systems.
  • jrumbut 7y ago
    The conversation here goes pretty well, no real names required. I actually think it's the opposite, real names bring in our real world problems and identities. A fresh name is a fresh start and maybe you take the chance to do better this time. It seems like people feel free to post the most atrocious nonsense on Facebook under their real name or maybe using one of the apparently billions of fake accounts that look just like real people. I don't think trust really works in internet conversations with strangers, you can't ever know their motives even if you know their names.
• sleepybrett 7y ago
  While apple does have some 'technology bars' you have to clear to get into their store. You can't use private APIs in the Apple frameworks for example. There are also 'content' bars that have to be surmounted. I don't think just because they use activity pub or whatever protocol that apple is going to roll over and play nice. Their whole social network is literally a garbage fire, Apple doesn't want to associate their brand with garbage fires. I expect Gab management is in for a rude awakening.
  • eugeniub 7y ago
    Why not? You can already use existing App Store apps to connect to whatever ActivityPub server you want, no matter the content. It's like how you can use an RSS reader app in the App Store to subscribe to literally any RSS feed.
    • Hamuko 7y ago
      Most likely because it has gone under the radar thus far. I'm just waiting for the first scandalous "here's how Apple is promoting rampant racism" article to pick up steam.
      • yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
        Let us hope that nobody tells them about http.
        • ohithereyou 7y ago
          Or email. Some of the most racist shit I've ever seen has come in as a forward from some distant relative who then gets autoshitcanned in the future.
  • javagram 7y ago
    Apple allows alternative web browsers and email clients. They also allow encrypted person to person messengers like whatsapp that terrorists can use to plan attacks. Any of this type of client app can and will be used for the worst things in the internet. So far Apple has not tried to censor it, I’d be surprised if that changed but we will see.