5 ms·

There's nothing about allowing Gab apps on F-Droid that denies anybody "the right not to hear something". Just don't install the app, and you won't see what peo

There's nothing about allowing Gab apps on F-Droid that denies anybody "the right not to hear something". Just don't install the app, and you won't see what people post on Gab.

phoe-krk 7y ago
The removal of Gab app from F-Droid is precisely exercising of the freedom of the right not to hear something. Gab is just like any other Fediverse client - with an important difference. To show it, let's use an example: for instance, Firefox doesn't brand itself with the logo of a company that abuses free speech to promote and benefit off hate speech. This is exactly what Gab does and - at least for me - which is the elephant in the room that hardly anyone talks about. Free speech, free speech, but why is Gab so proud of performing and/or tolerating gestures that actively harm other people? Gab, as a company, focuses on monetizing hate speech that it propagates via free speech. That's what I called the abuse of free speech previously in the discussion. Since Gab is a corporate instance and access is offered for free, then I am the product, even if I'm just a number in their user count; it means that if I join Gab, I help Gab in its goals, also in the one that I stated above. I do not want to do this, and I consider other people who stay there complicit or supportive of that behaviour. If they were not okay with what Gab does, they would not stay there.
- SuperNinKenDo 7y ago
  Nothing you just said contradicts or even really attempts to contradict my very simple statement.
  - phoe-krk 7y ago
    > Just don't install the app, and you won't see what people post on Gab. False. Gab recently became Activity-Pub compatible by forking Mastodon code, so now either your Fediverse instance's administrator or you must ban what Gab people post. So, obviously, you can see what Gab people say even without installing the app, which contradicts your implication.
    - SuperNinKenDo 7y ago
      Again, nothing about hosting Gab apps forces you to install them and be exposed to content from Gab. You still fail to address my point.
      - panpanna 7y ago
        I think you are deliberately missing the point of all this. Fdroid does not want to promote something that goes against their believes. If you love hate speech hiding behind "oh, but of free speech!" nothing forces you to use their store. See, that argument goes both ways.
        SuperNinKenDo 7y ago
        I'm not missing any point.
- RickSanchez2600 7y ago
  Gab allows Free Speech and does not have a code of conduct or ban or censor anyone. They claim this is freedom and the code of conduct is fascism. Anyone who writes a racist comment usually gets called out on it and called an idiot and mocked anyway on Gab. You cannot have both free speech and a code of conduct at the same time. You either allow everything or censor and ban things to a degree. Most of these racist comments are made by teenagers who think the N-word is funny and trolling people. So they post it over and over again.
  - phoe-krk 7y ago
    Gab, via their free speech and unwillingness to take down content in general, promotes content that is racist, misogynyst, antifeminist, islamophobic, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ableist, authoritariant, supremacist, and pretty much anti-intellectual. This is why I oppose that platform. Of course you can have free speech as a person and a code of conduct for your service. You are free to say anything, and your platform has a right to not want to hear or spread anything.
    - lake1 7y ago
      You are silly.
    - smsm42 7y ago
      > promotes content that is racist There's worlds of difference between hosting content and promoting content. The first is act of broad tolerance, the second is act of encouragement and agreement. This distinction is so important that the very first Amendment of US Constitution is based on it - the US government is obliged to tolerate any religion, but is explicitly forbidden to promote any. > and your platform has a right to not want to hear or spread anything. Once platform takes control over the right to hear, it ceases to be a neutral platform and becomes an editorial force. With private companies, it's usually not a problem - even if an unpopular opinion is suppressed and censored on one platform, it can be published on another. With growing monopolization of social networking, and with low-level infrastructure providers being slowly roped into facilitating censorship, this is becoming less and less true. And then we have to remind ourselves - why exactly do we have that First Amendment? If censorship is so good, why not let the government do it - after all, they are the ones that can do it best! Obviously, there are some bad downsides to it. We should remind ourselves from time to time what are those.
- writepub 7y ago
  > The removal of Gab app from F-Droid is precisely exercising of the freedom of the right not to hear something. No - it's merely exercising the right F-Driod has as a private entity to exercise it's rightful freedom. However, no one strapped anyone to chair and force fed them Gab content. Unless one wanted to access Gab as an exercise of their free will, one wouldn't just stumble upon it, especially with the mass banning of it's federation by other vendors. I respect F-Droid's right and decision to censor, but reject the hyperbole and demegaogary. A condemnation & guide on avoiding Gab would have sufficed, and furthered my respect for F-Droid. And who is all this for anyways? Are the tech savvy software devs & power users who gravitate towards F-Droid incapable of avoiding a site they really don't want to visit? What will they do about the 500M other domains on the internet? All accessible via F-Droid's browser apps!!
  - majkinetor 7y ago
    > And who is all this for anyways? Are the tech savvy software devs & power users who gravitate towards F-Droid incapable of avoiding a site they really don't want to visit? This! I am horrified by this kind of babysitting because it sure as hell backfires.
- smsm42 7y ago
  > If they were not okay with what Gab does, they would not stay there. So, you're saying if I use Skype, I agree with everything Microsoft does, if I use Gmail or Chrome, I agree with everything Google does, and if I use Facebook, I agree with everything that company does? That seems to not match the reality in about 99.9999% cases.
RickSanchez2600 7y ago
It is more of a denial of service for Gab because they allow anything on their site instead of policing it like Hacker News here and having a code of conduct. Gab went to Mastodon to be part of the federated universe but federated apps block their URL now.
- SuperNinKenDo 7y ago
  A synonym for a denial of service on a platform is a ban.
  - zaarn 7y ago
    The fediverse is not a platform but a set of protocols. Nobody can force you to federate with an instance any more than they should be coerced to listen to anyone's speech.
    - SuperNinKenDo 7y ago
      The issue is F-Droid not the fediverse.
      - zaarn 7y ago
        F-Droid isn't a platform either, you can run your own repository where free speech is priority if you want and offer your own version of F-Droid that comes with your repository compiled in as default. F-Droid too is just a set of protocols. The default app is open source as well and you're free to modify it if you want.
        SuperNinKenDo 7y ago
        I dunno why you're so committed to not calling a ban a ban. Of course, I have theories. Call a spade a spade mate.
        zaarn 7y ago

There's nothing about allowing Gab apps on F-Droid that denies anybody "the right not to hear something". Just don't install the app, and you won't see what people post on Gab.

phoe-krk 7y ago

The removal of Gab app from F-Droid is precisely exercising of the freedom of the right not to hear something. Gab is just like any other Fediverse client - with an important difference. To show it, let's use an example: for instance, Firefox doesn't brand itself with the logo of a company that abuses free speech to promote and benefit off hate speech. This is exactly what Gab does and - at least for me - which is the elephant in the room that hardly anyone talks about. Free speech, free speech, but why is Gab so proud of performing and/or tolerating gestures that actively harm other people? Gab, as a company, focuses on monetizing hate speech that it propagates via free speech. That's what I called the abuse of free speech previously in the discussion. Since Gab is a corporate instance and access is offered for free, then I am the product, even if I'm just a number in their user count; it means that if I join Gab, I help Gab in its goals, also in the one that I stated above. I do not want to do this, and I consider other people who stay there complicit or supportive of that behaviour. If they were not okay with what Gab does, they would not stay there.

SuperNinKenDo 7y ago
Nothing you just said contradicts or even really attempts to contradict my very simple statement.
- phoe-krk 7y ago
  > Just don't install the app, and you won't see what people post on Gab. False. Gab recently became Activity-Pub compatible by forking Mastodon code, so now either your Fediverse instance's administrator or you must ban what Gab people post. So, obviously, you can see what Gab people say even without installing the app, which contradicts your implication.
  - SuperNinKenDo 7y ago
    Again, nothing about hosting Gab apps forces you to install them and be exposed to content from Gab. You still fail to address my point.
    - panpanna 7y ago
      I think you are deliberately missing the point of all this. Fdroid does not want to promote something that goes against their believes. If you love hate speech hiding behind "oh, but of free speech!" nothing forces you to use their store. See, that argument goes both ways.
      - SuperNinKenDo 7y ago
        I'm not missing any point.
RickSanchez2600 7y ago
Gab allows Free Speech and does not have a code of conduct or ban or censor anyone. They claim this is freedom and the code of conduct is fascism. Anyone who writes a racist comment usually gets called out on it and called an idiot and mocked anyway on Gab. You cannot have both free speech and a code of conduct at the same time. You either allow everything or censor and ban things to a degree. Most of these racist comments are made by teenagers who think the N-word is funny and trolling people. So they post it over and over again.
- phoe-krk 7y ago
  Gab, via their free speech and unwillingness to take down content in general, promotes content that is racist, misogynyst, antifeminist, islamophobic, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ableist, authoritariant, supremacist, and pretty much anti-intellectual. This is why I oppose that platform. Of course you can have free speech as a person and a code of conduct for your service. You are free to say anything, and your platform has a right to not want to hear or spread anything.
  - lake1 7y ago
    You are silly.
  - smsm42 7y ago
    > promotes content that is racist There's worlds of difference between hosting content and promoting content. The first is act of broad tolerance, the second is act of encouragement and agreement. This distinction is so important that the very first Amendment of US Constitution is based on it - the US government is obliged to tolerate any religion, but is explicitly forbidden to promote any. > and your platform has a right to not want to hear or spread anything. Once platform takes control over the right to hear, it ceases to be a neutral platform and becomes an editorial force. With private companies, it's usually not a problem - even if an unpopular opinion is suppressed and censored on one platform, it can be published on another. With growing monopolization of social networking, and with low-level infrastructure providers being slowly roped into facilitating censorship, this is becoming less and less true. And then we have to remind ourselves - why exactly do we have that First Amendment? If censorship is so good, why not let the government do it - after all, they are the ones that can do it best! Obviously, there are some bad downsides to it. We should remind ourselves from time to time what are those.
writepub 7y ago
> The removal of Gab app from F-Droid is precisely exercising of the freedom of the right not to hear something. No - it's merely exercising the right F-Driod has as a private entity to exercise it's rightful freedom. However, no one strapped anyone to chair and force fed them Gab content. Unless one wanted to access Gab as an exercise of their free will, one wouldn't just stumble upon it, especially with the mass banning of it's federation by other vendors. I respect F-Droid's right and decision to censor, but reject the hyperbole and demegaogary. A condemnation & guide on avoiding Gab would have sufficed, and furthered my respect for F-Droid. And who is all this for anyways? Are the tech savvy software devs & power users who gravitate towards F-Droid incapable of avoiding a site they really don't want to visit? What will they do about the 500M other domains on the internet? All accessible via F-Droid's browser apps!!
- majkinetor 7y ago
  > And who is all this for anyways? Are the tech savvy software devs & power users who gravitate towards F-Droid incapable of avoiding a site they really don't want to visit? This! I am horrified by this kind of babysitting because it sure as hell backfires.
smsm42 7y ago
> If they were not okay with what Gab does, they would not stay there. So, you're saying if I use Skype, I agree with everything Microsoft does, if I use Gmail or Chrome, I agree with everything Google does, and if I use Facebook, I agree with everything that company does? That seems to not match the reality in about 99.9999% cases.

RickSanchez2600 7y ago

It is more of a denial of service for Gab because they allow anything on their site instead of policing it like Hacker News here and having a code of conduct. Gab went to Mastodon to be part of the federated universe but federated apps block their URL now.

SuperNinKenDo 7y ago
A synonym for a denial of service on a platform is a ban.
- zaarn 7y ago
  The fediverse is not a platform but a set of protocols. Nobody can force you to federate with an instance any more than they should be coerced to listen to anyone's speech.
  - SuperNinKenDo 7y ago
    The issue is F-Droid not the fediverse.
    - zaarn 7y ago
      F-Droid isn't a platform either, you can run your own repository where free speech is priority if you want and offer your own version of F-Droid that comes with your repository compiled in as default. F-Droid too is just a set of protocols. The default app is open source as well and you're free to modify it if you want.
      - SuperNinKenDo 7y ago
        I dunno why you're so committed to not calling a ban a ban. Of course, I have theories. Call a spade a spade mate.
        zaarn 7y ago