4 ms·

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

by 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
    - almaember 6y ago
      You don't seem to see the difference between the letter and the spirit. Sure, Tusky complies with the letter of the definition; that doesn't make it moral This is what Stallman said: > If a free program has a malicious feature, other developers in the community will take it out, and you can use the corrected version. You can also run free application programs and tools on nonfree operating systems; this falls short of fully giving you freedom, but many users do it.
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        Tusky complies with the spirit of the definition. More accurately, its list of blocked servers is entirely unrelated to whether or not it's free software. Again, the FSF explicitly says of freedom 0: > 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. What part of your quote does Tusky violate? It's GPL3. Even if you consider that block list a malicious feature (I don't), you are allowed to take it out and distribute a "corrected" version.
    - syshum 6y ago
      It is sad that as a culture we are loosing the value of freedom and bend over backwards to justify why it is ok for people to limit other peoples freedom When i first got into the IT world many decades ago it was largely libertarian, free culture was rampant and attempts to lock down peoples speech, and freedom was viewed very badly Today people like you find anything and everything to not only justify your Authoritarianism and desire for control over others, you do so by attempting to gas light people in to thinking you are actually supporting freedom Sorry I was there, I lived through the rise of the internet, I lived through the crypto wars, I saw the raise of Free Software, and Open source, I saw it all first hand... I know the dangers if the society you desire, but it seems history will need to repeat itself before people will learn This trend in some circles to limit speech and thought will not turn out good for anyone, never in history has speech codes and thought police been a good thing for society, and I see no reason to believe that the so called "progressives" that are leading this new round of authoritarian policies will turn out any different.

by syshum 6y ago

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
  - almaember 6y ago
    You don't seem to see the difference between the letter and the spirit. Sure, Tusky complies with the letter of the definition; that doesn't make it moral This is what Stallman said: > If a free program has a malicious feature, other developers in the community will take it out, and you can use the corrected version. You can also run free application programs and tools on nonfree operating systems; this falls short of fully giving you freedom, but many users do it.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      Tusky complies with the spirit of the definition. More accurately, its list of blocked servers is entirely unrelated to whether or not it's free software. Again, the FSF explicitly says of freedom 0: > 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. What part of your quote does Tusky violate? It's GPL3. Even if you consider that block list a malicious feature (I don't), you are allowed to take it out and distribute a "corrected" version.
  - syshum 6y ago
    It is sad that as a culture we are loosing the value of freedom and bend over backwards to justify why it is ok for people to limit other peoples freedom When i first got into the IT world many decades ago it was largely libertarian, free culture was rampant and attempts to lock down peoples speech, and freedom was viewed very badly Today people like you find anything and everything to not only justify your Authoritarianism and desire for control over others, you do so by attempting to gas light people in to thinking you are actually supporting freedom Sorry I was there, I lived through the rise of the internet, I lived through the crypto wars, I saw the raise of Free Software, and Open source, I saw it all first hand... I know the dangers if the society you desire, but it seems history will need to repeat itself before people will learn This trend in some circles to limit speech and thought will not turn out good for anyone, never in history has speech codes and thought police been a good thing for society, and I see no reason to believe that the so called "progressives" that are leading this new round of authoritarian policies will turn out any different.