3 ms·

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, t

by 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?
    - shakow 6y ago
      > And some of them work in tandem, apparently. Yeah, that's called a fork. Now, if you don't like them you can switch to Yuito, Mammut, Ivory, Mastobone, Stegodon, Fedilab, or the web client of your instance, or develop your own. > Would you not consider it problematic if Google blocked accessing websites because some engineer doesn't like the opinions published on those websites? They're already doing it, in China for instance; or on Chrome if a website is on their safe browsing list. And no, I don't find it problematic. Google is a private company, I don't have any say in what they do with their property as long as they follow the law.

by shakow 6y ago

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?
  - shakow 6y ago
    > And some of them work in tandem, apparently. Yeah, that's called a fork. Now, if you don't like them you can switch to Yuito, Mammut, Ivory, Mastobone, Stegodon, Fedilab, or the web client of your instance, or develop your own. > Would you not consider it problematic if Google blocked accessing websites because some engineer doesn't like the opinions published on those websites? They're already doing it, in China for instance; or on Chrome if a website is on their safe browsing list. And no, I don't find it problematic. Google is a private company, I don't have any say in what they do with their property as long as they follow the law.