4 ms·

The message here seems clear: F-Droid is not a free platform. The software on it might be free software, but it is curated by F-Droid. If you wish to exercise y

The message here seems clear: F-Droid is not a free platform. The software on it might be free software, but it is curated by F-Droid. If you wish to exercise your free speech, you should use another platform, since F-Droid can and will censor it. I for one am deciding now never to use F-Droid for anything important enough that it risks being censored. I do not use Gab myself, but I think such platforms are very important to a free society. It is ridiculous to try to censor a free speech-centered platform because people say disagreeable things on there; that is the point! We can not have "free speech, but only if I agree with you".

majewsky 7y ago
Exactly. Most people don't agree with the principle of "free speech without any asterisks". Die-hard free speech advocates are a fringe group (which is why they need to use a fringe service like Gab). (Side-note: Of course, you can probably come up with a poll where a majority of people respond that they support free speech, but you know how easy it is to skew polls. Asking for "Yes" or "No" does not make people consider the ramifications of their answer.)
- repolfx 7y ago
  That's a self-contradiction. You say most people don't agree with free speech, then you state if you ask people if they agree with it actually most will say yes, but that's meaningless because their opinion would be ill considered. I think all this shows is you don't care what other people think. Either they agree with you in which case they're right, or they disagree in which case it doesn't matter because they aren't smart enough to have an opinion, indeed, it's not even worth asking them because you can get any answer you want. That is the hallmark of totalitarian thinking throughout time.
  - majewsky 7y ago
    I've been called a lot of things, but totalitarian? That's a new one. My point is that free-speech advocates use opinion polls as an argument, saying that a majority supports free speech. But this argument is misguided because when you actually talk to people and make them consider the ramifications of radically free speech (e.g. "Do you support the right of other people to call for you being murdered?"), their opinions usually become much more nuanced.
    - repolfx 7y ago
      Yes, asking more precise questions will give more nuanced answers. But that doesn't invalidate the vaguer statement - most people do support speech being much more free than restricted, especially in America. That matters: you can't say "ah ha, but sometimes when given extreme examples people have doubt, so banning speech is totally OK". That's not what they said when they were asked. And by the way, I'm sure I can easily take that person prevaricating because they were given the "calling for you to be murdered" example and bring them back to supporting "radically" free speech. Just ask if they've ever said something like, "Damnit, I'm going to kill that guy!" when they got frustrated or upset. And if the answer is yes, point out that if they're against "other people calling for someone to be murdered" then they'd themselves be in prison. They'd object by saying something like, yes but of course I didn't really mean it, that isn't the same thing at all, and then you ask how anyone could tell and how sure they are they could defend themselves in court, if an enemy was claiming it should be taken seriously. In the end the reason for "radical" protections for free speech are logical - the consequences of not having it are worse than the consequences for having it. Genuine mob-raising "let's murder this guy" speech is so incredibly rare compared to political suppression it's not worth worrying about.

majewsky 7y ago

Exactly. Most people don't agree with the principle of "free speech without any asterisks". Die-hard free speech advocates are a fringe group (which is why they need to use a fringe service like Gab). (Side-note: Of course, you can probably come up with a poll where a majority of people respond that they support free speech, but you know how easy it is to skew polls. Asking for "Yes" or "No" does not make people consider the ramifications of their answer.)

repolfx 7y ago
That's a self-contradiction. You say most people don't agree with free speech, then you state if you ask people if they agree with it actually most will say yes, but that's meaningless because their opinion would be ill considered. I think all this shows is you don't care what other people think. Either they agree with you in which case they're right, or they disagree in which case it doesn't matter because they aren't smart enough to have an opinion, indeed, it's not even worth asking them because you can get any answer you want. That is the hallmark of totalitarian thinking throughout time.
- majewsky 7y ago
  I've been called a lot of things, but totalitarian? That's a new one. My point is that free-speech advocates use opinion polls as an argument, saying that a majority supports free speech. But this argument is misguided because when you actually talk to people and make them consider the ramifications of radically free speech (e.g. "Do you support the right of other people to call for you being murdered?"), their opinions usually become much more nuanced.
  - repolfx 7y ago
    Yes, asking more precise questions will give more nuanced answers. But that doesn't invalidate the vaguer statement - most people do support speech being much more free than restricted, especially in America. That matters: you can't say "ah ha, but sometimes when given extreme examples people have doubt, so banning speech is totally OK". That's not what they said when they were asked. And by the way, I'm sure I can easily take that person prevaricating because they were given the "calling for you to be murdered" example and bring them back to supporting "radically" free speech. Just ask if they've ever said something like, "Damnit, I'm going to kill that guy!" when they got frustrated or upset. And if the answer is yes, point out that if they're against "other people calling for someone to be murdered" then they'd themselves be in prison. They'd object by saying something like, yes but of course I didn't really mean it, that isn't the same thing at all, and then you ask how anyone could tell and how sure they are they could defend themselves in court, if an enemy was claiming it should be taken seriously. In the end the reason for "radical" protections for free speech are logical - the consequences of not having it are worse than the consequences for having it. Genuine mob-raising "let's murder this guy" speech is so incredibly rare compared to political suppression it's not worth worrying about.