6 ms·

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 se

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.
  - syshum 6y ago
    That is fine, just do not market it as a "Free Speech" service / tool / platform like the fediverse try's to do. The entire marketing of the fediverse software is freedom from censorship. if you want to build "Authoritarianverse" and place yourself as emperor for life, then you are free do to do just be open with your marketing so people know to avoid your software
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      I don’t actually think that’s accurate. I don’t see the term “free speech” or any obvious variation on https://tusky.app https://tusky.app or even on https://joinmastodon.org https://joinmastodon.org. As I understand it, their main goal is escaping corporate control, and any freedom from censorship they provide is incidental. See too Mastodon’s “server covenant”, which seeks to quarantine instances that allow hateful content: https://joinmastodon.org/covenant https://joinmastodon.org/covenant
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - syshum 6y ago
        Right on the home page of mastodon "Follow friends and discover new ones among more than 4.4M people. Publish anything you want:" Clearly that is a false statement if they are imposing their view of what "correct" speech is. They both also license their code under GPL, even though they violate Freedom 0 of the core freedom model the GPL is designed to protect The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). >> escaping corporate control Which is doubly ironic since they have adopted the same exact policies that many are fleeing Big Tech to avoid. The Silicon Valley Authoritarian left Speech codes
        jakelazaroff 6y ago
        Why did you omit the second half of that sentence? They’re clearly referring to the format, not the content: > Publish anything you want: links, pictures, text, video. You’re misinterpreting the meaning of freedom 0. Tusky and Mastodon comply with both the letter and the spirit: > The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not forbidden or stopped from making it run. This has nothing to do with what functionality the program has, whether it is technically capable of functioning in any given environment, or whether it is useful for any particular computing activity. > For example, if the code arbitrarily rejects certain meaningful inputs—or even fails unconditionally—that may make the program less useful, perhaps even totally useless, but it does not deny users the freedom to run the program, so it does not conflict with freedom 0. If the program is free, the users can overcome the loss of usefulness, because freedoms 1 and 3 permit users and communities to make and distribute modified versions without the arbitrary nuisance code. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

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.
- syshum 6y ago
  That is fine, just do not market it as a "Free Speech" service / tool / platform like the fediverse try's to do. The entire marketing of the fediverse software is freedom from censorship. if you want to build "Authoritarianverse" and place yourself as emperor for life, then you are free do to do just be open with your marketing so people know to avoid your software
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    I don’t actually think that’s accurate. I don’t see the term “free speech” or any obvious variation on https://tusky.app https://tusky.app or even on https://joinmastodon.org https://joinmastodon.org. As I understand it, their main goal is escaping corporate control, and any freedom from censorship they provide is incidental. See too Mastodon’s “server covenant”, which seeks to quarantine instances that allow hateful content: https://joinmastodon.org/covenant https://joinmastodon.org/covenant
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - syshum 6y ago
      Right on the home page of mastodon "Follow friends and discover new ones among more than 4.4M people. Publish anything you want:" Clearly that is a false statement if they are imposing their view of what "correct" speech is. They both also license their code under GPL, even though they violate Freedom 0 of the core freedom model the GPL is designed to protect The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). >> escaping corporate control Which is doubly ironic since they have adopted the same exact policies that many are fleeing Big Tech to avoid. The Silicon Valley Authoritarian left Speech codes
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        Why did you omit the second half of that sentence? They’re clearly referring to the format, not the content: > Publish anything you want: links, pictures, text, video. You’re misinterpreting the meaning of freedom 0. Tusky and Mastodon comply with both the letter and the spirit: > The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not forbidden or stopped from making it run. This has nothing to do with what functionality the program has, whether it is technically capable of functioning in any given environment, or whether it is useful for any particular computing activity. > For example, if the code arbitrarily rejects certain meaningful inputs—or even fails unconditionally—that may make the program less useful, perhaps even totally useless, but it does not deny users the freedom to run the program, so it does not conflict with freedom 0. If the program is free, the users can overcome the loss of usefulness, because freedoms 1 and 3 permit users and communities to make and distribute modified versions without the arbitrary nuisance code. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html