6 ms·

Amusing that Husky is still up, a fork of Tusky that has support for some additional Pleroma features and lacks Tusky's blacklist of certain "naughty" instances

Amusing that Husky is still up, a fork of Tusky that has support for some additional Pleroma features and lacks Tusky's blacklist of certain "naughty" instances. https://github.com/fwgs/husky https://github.com/fwgs/husky

jorvi 6y ago
It still blows my mind that Mastodon was explicitly made to escape the 'dictator companies' of closed social networks but that many of the apps made for Mastodon contain blacklists. I don't agree with the content of said blacklisted Mastodon instances and I agree that developers can do whatever they want with their app, but blacklists seem painfully obviously against the spirit of what Mastodon is supposed to represent.
- 3np 6y ago
  On the contrary, the idea in the fediverse is that you choose a server that aligns with your needs and preferences. You can always run your own promiscuous instance if you want. This is in contrary to the status quo, where the vertical integration makes it practically impossible to choose a differently filtered view. Over time I'm sure we'll see curation markets for filter lists, think adblock lists but tied to some collaboration, voting, incentive mechanisms and reputation system.
  - PurpleFoxy 6y ago
    OPs point is the app devs are trying to stop you picking your own server by blocking you from logging in to unapproved servers via the app. Instances blocking each other is perfectly understandable. This is like if chrome started blocking websites google disapproves of.
    - 3np 6y ago
      You're right - but my argument is equally applicable to Mastodon apps as to instances or Google's app store - you can always choose a different app! If they start using their own proprietary protocol extensions, or closed their instance to other clients, I'd not be as dismissive.
      - josephcsible 6y ago
        > you can always choose a different app Not if the app stores have a rule that every such client has to ban the servers that the app store doesn't like.
        3np 6y ago
        See my comment on the relevant thread here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26489901 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26489901
- whywhywhywhy 6y ago
  Gotta keep in mind the concept of "Federation" isn't the same as "Anti-censorship" or "Free Speech". It's less escaping the censored and restricted megacorp service to freedom or free speech anarchy and more you're able to build your own service that fulfills your own needs and own preferred blend of moderation vs free speech and that service can interact with others own instances with their own rules. Same goes for the clients.
  - syshum 6y ago
    The problem with that argument is that the developers of the application are making the choices not the people that are "building their own service" This goes to the core of the debate, I am in favor of giving users the ability to block anyone they want, even the ability to subscribe to and distribute block lists However it is step to far to hardcode or build in unchangeable block lists into the very foundation of the service. Developers need to empower users to make their own choices, not treat users like they were children
    - jsmith99 6y ago
      Free speech! Free software! But only for people with some programming skills, it seems. (Or at least enough to fork the app on GitHub)
      - bronson 6y ago
        Free furniture! But only for people with woodworking skills it seems. If you can’t convince an expert to give you what you want, yes, you will need to learn to do it yourself.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      When I build something, I alone get to decide what my labor enables and what it does not. If you disagree with my choices, you’re free to use a tool built by someone whose values better align with yours.
      - 6y ago
- fwn 6y ago
  The idea behind federated networks is to spread power. If power is truly spread out and people there are as heterogeneous as everywhere else it does mean that there will be instances that do not agree on the process on how to handle things. That is by design. Long term the only one you as a Mastodon user have to agree with is the administrator of your instance. If you are on a mainstream instance where, let's say, zealots push for an ever smaller overton window and isolate the instance you should, ideally, just switch instances as soon as it starts getting in your way. It is natural that parts of the network will drift in different directions while they iterate on their understanding on how the instance should be governed. Truly problematic are not instances deciding to go strict but platform providers trying to pressure their vague and intransparent rules onto the network. ... also the ever present risk of software developers adding their own hierarchy to the system, but that problem is inherent to all shared protocols.
- mansion7 6y ago
  They must bend over and accept the blacklists, for our betters at Apple and Google have deemed some of the instances to be too naughty. They will ban the app from their stores if such access is allowed. Instead, one must access naughty comment through other approved means, such as Chrome or Safari.
- shakow 6y ago
  The thing is that Mastodon and other libre platforms mantra is not to ensure that everyone express themselves, but that everyone can do so. I am, personally, totally fine with that: I don't wish to have ideas I hold in contempt sneak into my feed. But the key difference with “dictator companies” is that I decide what I don't see and whom I enclose with.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > But the key difference with “dictator companies” is that I decide what I don't see and whom I enclose with. But you don't. The app decides for you and blocks what you shall not see.
    - yarcob 6y ago
      It's not a problem if there are alternatives to the app. You can just use a different app. The problem is when there's no alternative because the platform owner blocks you.
    - M2Ys4U 6y ago
      There is no "the app". There are many apps. The protocol is open, so you could even write your own app, or if you lack the skills or time to do so, commission somebody else to write one and nobody can stop you. In contrast, the siloed "dictator companies" control API/protocol access so it's almost impossible to develop alternative applications.
    - shakow 6y ago
      There is a dozen apps, and most of these are opensource. Not to count that the protocol and the federation are open. Once again, “free speech” is not “spoon-feed you a way to reach millions of people in an eyeblink”, it's “don't prevent you from doing it”.
      - luckylion 6y ago
        > There is a dozen apps, and most of these are opensource. And some of them work in tandem, apparently. > Not to count that the protocol and the federation are open. HTTP is open. Would you not consider it problematic if Google blocked accessing websites because some engineer doesn't like the opinions published on those websites?
- wffurr 6y ago
  There's a joke (can't find the comic or article, darn you Google search) that says when you make a forum with "free speech" you get one civil libertarian and 99 trolls, neo nazis, child pornographers, etc. Moderation is essential for usable communities. These block lists are a form of moderation to make Mastodon useful. Otherwise it's pushed on to the user, many of whom will just nope out back to Reddit or Facebook, or to the Mastodon server administrators, who are largely unpaid volunteer labor.
  - rvschuilenburg 6y ago
    The person you're replying to is not referring to blocklists between mastodon instances (so for example, having mastodon.org blocking federation between them and cybre.space), but clients preventing you to login to certain instances. It's like an e-mail client that supports the POP-protocol preventing logins to pop.myemailserver.com because they don't like myemailserver.com
  - jaster 6y ago
    Not sure if it's the one you were thinking about, but there is a similar passage in the Slate Star Codex article "Neutral vs. Conservative: The Eternal Struggle" https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservative-the-eternal-struggle/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservativ... The moral of the story is: if you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches. It will be a terrible place to live even if witch-hunts are genuinely wrong.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - soundnote 6y ago
    The Tusky blocklists for eg. Gab and Spinster don't impact the actual communities one iota - most Mastodon servers already block them, and the instance and user level are where the filtering should take place in Mastodon's system design. Some rando using Spinster on their phone isn't going to contaminate anyone else.

jorvi 6y ago

It still blows my mind that Mastodon was explicitly made to escape the 'dictator companies' of closed social networks but that many of the apps made for Mastodon contain blacklists. I don't agree with the content of said blacklisted Mastodon instances and I agree that developers can do whatever they want with their app, but blacklists seem painfully obviously against the spirit of what Mastodon is supposed to represent.

3np 6y ago
On the contrary, the idea in the fediverse is that you choose a server that aligns with your needs and preferences. You can always run your own promiscuous instance if you want. This is in contrary to the status quo, where the vertical integration makes it practically impossible to choose a differently filtered view. Over time I'm sure we'll see curation markets for filter lists, think adblock lists but tied to some collaboration, voting, incentive mechanisms and reputation system.
- PurpleFoxy 6y ago
  OPs point is the app devs are trying to stop you picking your own server by blocking you from logging in to unapproved servers via the app. Instances blocking each other is perfectly understandable. This is like if chrome started blocking websites google disapproves of.
  - 3np 6y ago
    You're right - but my argument is equally applicable to Mastodon apps as to instances or Google's app store - you can always choose a different app! If they start using their own proprietary protocol extensions, or closed their instance to other clients, I'd not be as dismissive.
    - josephcsible 6y ago
      > you can always choose a different app Not if the app stores have a rule that every such client has to ban the servers that the app store doesn't like.
      - 3np 6y ago
        See my comment on the relevant thread here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26489901 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26489901
whywhywhywhy 6y ago
Gotta keep in mind the concept of "Federation" isn't the same as "Anti-censorship" or "Free Speech". It's less escaping the censored and restricted megacorp service to freedom or free speech anarchy and more you're able to build your own service that fulfills your own needs and own preferred blend of moderation vs free speech and that service can interact with others own instances with their own rules. Same goes for the clients.
- syshum 6y ago
  The problem with that argument is that the developers of the application are making the choices not the people that are "building their own service" This goes to the core of the debate, I am in favor of giving users the ability to block anyone they want, even the ability to subscribe to and distribute block lists However it is step to far to hardcode or build in unchangeable block lists into the very foundation of the service. Developers need to empower users to make their own choices, not treat users like they were children
  - jsmith99 6y ago
    Free speech! Free software! But only for people with some programming skills, it seems. (Or at least enough to fork the app on GitHub)
    - bronson 6y ago
      Free furniture! But only for people with woodworking skills it seems. If you can’t convince an expert to give you what you want, yes, you will need to learn to do it yourself.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    When I build something, I alone get to decide what my labor enables and what it does not. If you disagree with my choices, you’re free to use a tool built by someone whose values better align with yours.
    - 6y ago
fwn 6y ago
The idea behind federated networks is to spread power. If power is truly spread out and people there are as heterogeneous as everywhere else it does mean that there will be instances that do not agree on the process on how to handle things. That is by design. Long term the only one you as a Mastodon user have to agree with is the administrator of your instance. If you are on a mainstream instance where, let's say, zealots push for an ever smaller overton window and isolate the instance you should, ideally, just switch instances as soon as it starts getting in your way. It is natural that parts of the network will drift in different directions while they iterate on their understanding on how the instance should be governed. Truly problematic are not instances deciding to go strict but platform providers trying to pressure their vague and intransparent rules onto the network. ... also the ever present risk of software developers adding their own hierarchy to the system, but that problem is inherent to all shared protocols.
mansion7 6y ago
They must bend over and accept the blacklists, for our betters at Apple and Google have deemed some of the instances to be too naughty. They will ban the app from their stores if such access is allowed. Instead, one must access naughty comment through other approved means, such as Chrome or Safari.
shakow 6y ago
The thing is that Mastodon and other libre platforms mantra is not to ensure that everyone express themselves, but that everyone can do so. I am, personally, totally fine with that: I don't wish to have ideas I hold in contempt sneak into my feed. But the key difference with “dictator companies” is that I decide what I don't see and whom I enclose with.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > But the key difference with “dictator companies” is that I decide what I don't see and whom I enclose with. But you don't. The app decides for you and blocks what you shall not see.
  - yarcob 6y ago
    It's not a problem if there are alternatives to the app. You can just use a different app. The problem is when there's no alternative because the platform owner blocks you.
  - M2Ys4U 6y ago
    There is no "the app". There are many apps. The protocol is open, so you could even write your own app, or if you lack the skills or time to do so, commission somebody else to write one and nobody can stop you. In contrast, the siloed "dictator companies" control API/protocol access so it's almost impossible to develop alternative applications.
  - shakow 6y ago
    There is a dozen apps, and most of these are opensource. Not to count that the protocol and the federation are open. Once again, “free speech” is not “spoon-feed you a way to reach millions of people in an eyeblink”, it's “don't prevent you from doing it”.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      > There is a dozen apps, and most of these are opensource. And some of them work in tandem, apparently. > Not to count that the protocol and the federation are open. HTTP is open. Would you not consider it problematic if Google blocked accessing websites because some engineer doesn't like the opinions published on those websites?
wffurr 6y ago
There's a joke (can't find the comic or article, darn you Google search) that says when you make a forum with "free speech" you get one civil libertarian and 99 trolls, neo nazis, child pornographers, etc. Moderation is essential for usable communities. These block lists are a form of moderation to make Mastodon useful. Otherwise it's pushed on to the user, many of whom will just nope out back to Reddit or Facebook, or to the Mastodon server administrators, who are largely unpaid volunteer labor.
- rvschuilenburg 6y ago
  The person you're replying to is not referring to blocklists between mastodon instances (so for example, having mastodon.org blocking federation between them and cybre.space), but clients preventing you to login to certain instances. It's like an e-mail client that supports the POP-protocol preventing logins to pop.myemailserver.com because they don't like myemailserver.com
- jaster 6y ago
  Not sure if it's the one you were thinking about, but there is a similar passage in the Slate Star Codex article "Neutral vs. Conservative: The Eternal Struggle" https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservative-the-eternal-struggle/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservativ... The moral of the story is: if you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches. It will be a terrible place to live even if witch-hunts are genuinely wrong.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- soundnote 6y ago
  The Tusky blocklists for eg. Gab and Spinster don't impact the actual communities one iota - most Mastodon servers already block them, and the instance and user level are where the filtering should take place in Mastodon's system design. Some rando using Spinster on their phone isn't going to contaminate anyone else.