6 ms·

Lets be serious. Libera is a direct competitor for the userbase of Freenode. If you went on to some message board and posted hey come to my message board we're

Lets be serious. Libera is a direct competitor for the userbase of Freenode. If you went on to some message board and posted hey come to my message board we're over there. Even though the message board makes no profit, that is still someone's project and they will not take kindy to taking their userbase and will delete the message. Expecting otherwise is just acting entitled. Honestly, the entire freenode nonsense is just a bunch of people acting super entitled over an IRC network they don't pay for and is basically their hobby. From what I can tell it basically all came down to the fact the staffers got pissed they couldn't control the domains which they didn't pay for. The fact they expect someone who bought the domains just to give the domains to them is nothing but entitlement.

linuxftw 5y ago
I'm 100% with you. What's Freenode supposed to do, let all their channels become pointers to some other server run by a hostile group who's actively defaming them? The outrage mob only wants to be outraged, they're incapable of considering both sides.
- cmsj 5y ago
  Freenode could have reached out to channel founders and asked us to leave the channels open, and allowed us to indicate that they are now unofficial channels. Instead they just revoked our access to them and overwrote the channel topics. Beyond that, yes, they are supposed to let projects decide where they want to be.
  - linuxftw 5y ago
    Freenode could have done things differently, 'channel founders' (as if that denotes some kind of status) could have done things differently. Seems like one side provoked a fight, the other side responded, and now the initiators of the fight are calling foul.
    - cmsj 5y ago
      What should I have done differently? I chose to move the official IRC channel for my FOSS project to a different server, so I registered the new channel on the new server, and updated the topic in the old channel to say it was no longer the official channel and where the new one is. There's nothing provocative about that.
      - linuxftw 5y ago
        Your actions seem reasonable (though, I question the motives), and Freenode's actions seem reasonable. The only issue is people are upset that Freenode responded to their actions. If you're leaving Freenode, then leave, don't expect them to keep your empty channel with a pointer elsewhere intact.
        macintux 5y ago
        > …don't expect them to keep your empty channel with a pointer elsewhere intact. That’s how IRC has always worked, and that’s how open communities in general work. The marginal cost to Freenode is effectively zero, and the benefit is that users are not cast adrift without warning. Clearly Freenode is no longer an open platform.
        MauranKilom 5y ago
        > don't expect them to keep your empty channel with a pointer elsewhere intact. ...except that has been the written policy. And then after channels were forcible taken over, they changed the policy to remove any mention of this.
        linuxftw 5y ago
        "The policy!" As if it's some holy relic to be revered. Things changed, the policy changed. Where is the sense of entitlement coming from?
        daenney 5y ago
- croon 5y ago
  I come from a time when IRC servers (inside each network, Freenode being one) were usually sponsored by universities, ISPs, foundations, etc. This mindset of "competitors" and business cost of hosting some IRC chatter as if it's on a 2021 datacenter scale is quite frankly absurd. I doubt there are more IRC users now than in 1997, and in 1997 no one would care if an efnet channel linked to a dalnet channel. My $0.02.
- alias_neo 5y ago
  You missed the part where all of the channels who moved were given reason to move. Nobody makes like a tree and leaves unless they're just pissed off with the way things are now. People don't enjoy making work for themselves. So no, Leenode wasn't meant to let their channels become pointers, they should have not taken several actions which caused Libera to need to exist in the first place. The great thing is, the visitors are what make the communities on IRC, so if people want to move server, they just do, there's no need to even talk about it other than to inform visitors that Leenode is actively trying to prevent communities from notifying their users that they've left for greener pastures. I don't really care to get involved with the whole debacle, I'm just someone who goes to odd communities for specific subjects from time to time. Other than dropping my account on Leenode and recreating it on Libera, I'll just update my server URL and carry on with my life.
cmsj 5y ago
You must be new to IRC - channels moving servers is not at all new. It's pretty unusual for server admins to actively resist it though.
- that_guy_iain 5y ago
  I left IRC almost a decade ago. Channels moving servers honestly, rarely happened in my day. The networks were all pretty much set up. You may get smaller communities changing from smaller networks but that was it and that was generally a friendly affair if it wasn't the channel was forced closed by the network admins. Most of the channels moving have never moved before. And those that did, did 10-20 years ago. It is a rare event.
  - cmsj 5y ago
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I've been on IRC since the 90s and a number of channels I've been part of in that time, have renamed, fractured into multiple channels, moved to other public servers, moved to private servers, etc, etc. This is the first time I've encountered IRCops trying to stop it from happening.
daenney 5y ago
Staffers might not have paid for the domains, but most of them have spent huge amounts of their time managing the network and turning it into what it was. To pretend this is a bunch of staffers having a temper tantrum related to ownership of the Freenode domain name feels very disingenuous, and a rather odd conclusion to come to based on the events to far.
- that_guy_iain 5y ago
  This is 100% a bunch of middle-class privileged people having a massive temper tantrum. They literally went around saying, "Assume Freenode is under the control of a malicious actor" just because they wanted to get other people to help out. If you read both sides of the story, you can decide where the middle ground is. The staffers have a right to decide they want to split off and do their own thing. But going around saying the data is unsafe and there are malicious actors at play seems nothing but a grown-up having a temper tantrum. Crying about a sponsor having a logo on the website is beyond words.
  - hvdijk 5y ago
    Maybe that was the wrong way to phrase it, maybe we shouldn't assume Freenode is under the control of a malicious actor as there's no need to question rasengan's intentions. What it boils down to is that his actions now are indistinguishable from malice, intentions aside, and so we should react accordingly.
  - lolinder 5y ago
    The fact that the new ownership perceives Libera as a "competitor" (your word) is exactly why the new ownership should be considered a malicious actor. That is an attitude belonging not to a FOSS network but to a business that is planning to monetize its userbase, all the while trying to reassure everyone that their communities are safe.
  - Lazare 5y ago
    ...but Freenode is now behaving maliciously, banning people without good cause, and interfering with tools that open source projects use to coordinate and to provide support for users. Yes, I know, "Freenode is under the control of a malicious actor" is really melodramatic and honestly sounds a bit unreal, but it also seems to be an accurate statement of facts. Reality is not required to adhere to your understanding of what makes the best narrative. > If you read both sides of the story, you can decide where the middle ground is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation I have read both sides of the story, and I have formed an estimation of which side is telling the truth and is in the right, yes. And it's not Lee.
Jiejeing 5y ago
This is a gross misrepresentation of what is taking place. I don’t want to pick sides in the current chaos, but it’s not "paid for the domain", it is "managed to get the domain transferred to them". I do not believe any of the current libera staff would object to paying the few dollars/year for the domain registration (or even the DNS infrastructure). There is also something called "being decent". For a network that is (was) essentially a chat network for tons of FOSS projects, taking over the channels because people wanted to have a smooth transition from one network to another is not decent. This is a shitshow, especially for this kind of infrastructure.
- that_guy_iain 5y ago
  > but it’s not "paid for the domain", it is "managed to get the domain transferred to them It was said, I believe, by multiple of the people who quit to create their new network that the domains were sold to Lee by someone who was given leadership of the group. This means they domains were paid for. I'm sure they wouldn't mind the few dollars for renewal but a domain like freenode probably got sold for a few thousand. > There is also something called "being decent". For a network that is (was) essentially a chat network for tons of FOSS projects, taking over the channels because people wanted to have a smooth transition from one network to another is not decent. I think it's not decent to expect that a group that has been bad mouthed repeatedly support the smooth transition for the new network. That honestly, the only part I have trouble with. I think there is a bunch of entitlement but if it wasn't for everyone being pissy that Freenode isn't just rolling over is just disgusting in my opinion. Reminds me of bullies at school who would say and do whatever they want to you but when you hit back you're the villian. > This is a shitshow, especially for this kind of infrastructure. To be fair, it's been a shit show from the start. Seriously, how many I quit letters were flooded on to this paltform and others like it? The one announcement was all that was needed.
  - Jiejeing 5y ago
    > I think there is a bunch of entitlement but if it wasn't for everyone being pissy that Freenode isn't just rolling over is just disgusting in my opinion. It certainly nudged everyone still undecided to move to other networks. And it is not OK to suddenly change the terms on which channels are managed, freenode was chosen by the projects on its merits (history, being a haven for all the other projects, its staff, spam handling, and most of all trustworthiness), and if that changes and the only reason you cannot move is because there is now a new policy telling that you can’t do a graceful move, it is bad. This is not VC-funded startups competing for the spot on "best smart hairdryer of the week" and using shady practices to get the audience, this is a volunteer-run open network supposed to cater for the FOSS space, and aggressive lock-in is generally not what is expected here. (heck, I have seen plenty of projects adding "this has moved to gitter/matrix/discourse/etc" in the topic during 15 years I have been on it, without seeing any action taken)
lolc 5y ago
Ok, let's look at Freenode's users as customers. They would not see it that way, but when you choose that perspective, consider how a business should act: If customers are leaving, do not kick them in the butt. Other patrons will notice your lack of grace. (Edit: With customers I mean projects that maintain a channel.) I've so far been bemused by this drama I'm not involved in. Now I can just say that Freenode is burned even if they manage to wrangle that guy from the controls.
- cmsj 5y ago
  Yup. I started off being mildly dismayed by the drama, but it didn't feel like it needed to affect me or my channels.... ... now I am convinced I want nothing to do with freenode anymore.
tvaughan 5y ago
I have a couple of repos on GitHub that point to their new home on GitLab. Would it be ok if GitHub took over these projects for the same reason?
- that_guy_iain 5y ago
  Yes. And to think otherwise is acting entitled. GitHub is a for-profit company providing you services for free. It is outrageous to think that they must keep your repository up that is advertising a competitor. The entitlement from the tech scene honestly just stinks.
  - marcus_holmes 5y ago
    I get why you think this. But that's not how it works. Github is in an implied contract with its users - it provides free infrastructure for people to store their git repos, and in return it is considered the most prominent place to store git repos. Part of that contract is that what you store on Github belongs to you, not Github. If it breaks this contract, then it loses that prominence, and the paid accounts go away with that, too. The entire business model relies on Github being the place everyone goes to, and that is based on this implied contract. Breaking the contract breaks the business model. Same with Freenode. The communities do not belong to Freenode, despite being hosted there. If Freenode breaks this implied contract, then it loses all legitimacy and the communities will leave (as we're seeing happen).
  - HomeDeLaPot 5y ago
    Providing free services doesn't give someone the right to be an asshole when users want to leave. It doesn't give them the right to suddenly seize a channel/repo that someone has put a lot of work into building up and then not take flak about it. Sure, the motivation for profit & retention is there, but capitalism != morality.
  - Lazare 5y ago
    Github has every right to do that (subject to the term of their user service agreements and applicable local laws, etc., of course). It'd also cause the utter destruction of their current business model. They do NOT do this, because they recognise it is utterly incompatible with their goal of being a trusted hub for open source collaboration, which in turn is a key step in their larger strategy of achieving fat profits and market dominance. > GitHub is a for-profit company Yes, and they want to make a profit, so they don't do dumb stuff that, to pick a random example, a rich guy funding a small volunteer organisation as a hobby might feel comfortable doing.
zozbot234 5y ago
> If you went on to some message board and posted hey come to my message board we're over there. Even though the message board makes no profit, that is still someone's project and they will not take kindy to taking their userbase and will delete the message. Let's not pretend that this is normal. I can freely mention https://lobste.rs https://lobste.rs on HN and my comment is not going to be deleted or flagged even though lobsters is a directly competing message board, as long as my mention is relevant to the discussion. This was a case of channels being taken over for merely mentioning liberachat as something they might care about in the future, not even trying to actively direct users away from Freenode.
- larvaetron 5y ago
  > even though lobsters is a directly competing message board lobste.rs is invite only, so not exactly an apples to apples comparison.
  - Lazare 5y ago
    It's pretty easy to get an invite.
- that_guy_iain 5y ago
  Come on, we both know those topics mentioning libera.chat were "Go to Libera.chat instead! Our channel is now there. Details are..." If you posted hundreds of messages on this site saying go to lobste.rs then you would get banned. If you posted one I doubt anything happen because that is fair. But lets also add in the fact that libera.chat went around bad mouthing the hell out of freenode and are now crying that freenode won't let them advertise their new network on their network.
tyingq 5y ago
The history of IRC, though, is full of network fork/splits when the network owner goes heavy-handed.
raxxorrax 5y ago
> Expecting otherwise is just acting entitled. As is the idea that you can just buy users.

linuxftw 5y ago

I'm 100% with you. What's Freenode supposed to do, let all their channels become pointers to some other server run by a hostile group who's actively defaming them? The outrage mob only wants to be outraged, they're incapable of considering both sides.

cmsj 5y ago
Freenode could have reached out to channel founders and asked us to leave the channels open, and allowed us to indicate that they are now unofficial channels. Instead they just revoked our access to them and overwrote the channel topics. Beyond that, yes, they are supposed to let projects decide where they want to be.
- linuxftw 5y ago
  Freenode could have done things differently, 'channel founders' (as if that denotes some kind of status) could have done things differently. Seems like one side provoked a fight, the other side responded, and now the initiators of the fight are calling foul.
  - cmsj 5y ago
    What should I have done differently? I chose to move the official IRC channel for my FOSS project to a different server, so I registered the new channel on the new server, and updated the topic in the old channel to say it was no longer the official channel and where the new one is. There's nothing provocative about that.
    - linuxftw 5y ago
      Your actions seem reasonable (though, I question the motives), and Freenode's actions seem reasonable. The only issue is people are upset that Freenode responded to their actions. If you're leaving Freenode, then leave, don't expect them to keep your empty channel with a pointer elsewhere intact.
      - macintux 5y ago
        > …don't expect them to keep your empty channel with a pointer elsewhere intact. That’s how IRC has always worked, and that’s how open communities in general work. The marginal cost to Freenode is effectively zero, and the benefit is that users are not cast adrift without warning. Clearly Freenode is no longer an open platform.
      - MauranKilom 5y ago
        > don't expect them to keep your empty channel with a pointer elsewhere intact. ...except that has been the written policy. And then after channels were forcible taken over, they changed the policy to remove any mention of this.
        linuxftw 5y ago
        "The policy!" As if it's some holy relic to be revered. Things changed, the policy changed. Where is the sense of entitlement coming from?
        daenney 5y ago
croon 5y ago
I come from a time when IRC servers (inside each network, Freenode being one) were usually sponsored by universities, ISPs, foundations, etc. This mindset of "competitors" and business cost of hosting some IRC chatter as if it's on a 2021 datacenter scale is quite frankly absurd. I doubt there are more IRC users now than in 1997, and in 1997 no one would care if an efnet channel linked to a dalnet channel. My $0.02.
alias_neo 5y ago
You missed the part where all of the channels who moved were given reason to move. Nobody makes like a tree and leaves unless they're just pissed off with the way things are now. People don't enjoy making work for themselves. So no, Leenode wasn't meant to let their channels become pointers, they should have not taken several actions which caused Libera to need to exist in the first place. The great thing is, the visitors are what make the communities on IRC, so if people want to move server, they just do, there's no need to even talk about it other than to inform visitors that Leenode is actively trying to prevent communities from notifying their users that they've left for greener pastures. I don't really care to get involved with the whole debacle, I'm just someone who goes to odd communities for specific subjects from time to time. Other than dropping my account on Leenode and recreating it on Libera, I'll just update my server URL and carry on with my life.

cmsj 5y ago

You must be new to IRC - channels moving servers is not at all new. It's pretty unusual for server admins to actively resist it though.

that_guy_iain 5y ago
I left IRC almost a decade ago. Channels moving servers honestly, rarely happened in my day. The networks were all pretty much set up. You may get smaller communities changing from smaller networks but that was it and that was generally a friendly affair if it wasn't the channel was forced closed by the network admins. Most of the channels moving have never moved before. And those that did, did 10-20 years ago. It is a rare event.
- cmsj 5y ago
  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I've been on IRC since the 90s and a number of channels I've been part of in that time, have renamed, fractured into multiple channels, moved to other public servers, moved to private servers, etc, etc. This is the first time I've encountered IRCops trying to stop it from happening.

daenney 5y ago

Staffers might not have paid for the domains, but most of them have spent huge amounts of their time managing the network and turning it into what it was. To pretend this is a bunch of staffers having a temper tantrum related to ownership of the Freenode domain name feels very disingenuous, and a rather odd conclusion to come to based on the events to far.

that_guy_iain 5y ago
This is 100% a bunch of middle-class privileged people having a massive temper tantrum. They literally went around saying, "Assume Freenode is under the control of a malicious actor" just because they wanted to get other people to help out. If you read both sides of the story, you can decide where the middle ground is. The staffers have a right to decide they want to split off and do their own thing. But going around saying the data is unsafe and there are malicious actors at play seems nothing but a grown-up having a temper tantrum. Crying about a sponsor having a logo on the website is beyond words.
- hvdijk 5y ago
  Maybe that was the wrong way to phrase it, maybe we shouldn't assume Freenode is under the control of a malicious actor as there's no need to question rasengan's intentions. What it boils down to is that his actions now are indistinguishable from malice, intentions aside, and so we should react accordingly.
- lolinder 5y ago
  The fact that the new ownership perceives Libera as a "competitor" (your word) is exactly why the new ownership should be considered a malicious actor. That is an attitude belonging not to a FOSS network but to a business that is planning to monetize its userbase, all the while trying to reassure everyone that their communities are safe.
- Lazare 5y ago
  ...but Freenode is now behaving maliciously, banning people without good cause, and interfering with tools that open source projects use to coordinate and to provide support for users. Yes, I know, "Freenode is under the control of a malicious actor" is really melodramatic and honestly sounds a bit unreal, but it also seems to be an accurate statement of facts. Reality is not required to adhere to your understanding of what makes the best narrative. > If you read both sides of the story, you can decide where the middle ground is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation I have read both sides of the story, and I have formed an estimation of which side is telling the truth and is in the right, yes. And it's not Lee.

Jiejeing 5y ago

This is a gross misrepresentation of what is taking place. I don’t want to pick sides in the current chaos, but it’s not "paid for the domain", it is "managed to get the domain transferred to them". I do not believe any of the current libera staff would object to paying the few dollars/year for the domain registration (or even the DNS infrastructure). There is also something called "being decent". For a network that is (was) essentially a chat network for tons of FOSS projects, taking over the channels because people wanted to have a smooth transition from one network to another is not decent. This is a shitshow, especially for this kind of infrastructure.

that_guy_iain 5y ago
> but it’s not "paid for the domain", it is "managed to get the domain transferred to them It was said, I believe, by multiple of the people who quit to create their new network that the domains were sold to Lee by someone who was given leadership of the group. This means they domains were paid for. I'm sure they wouldn't mind the few dollars for renewal but a domain like freenode probably got sold for a few thousand. > There is also something called "being decent". For a network that is (was) essentially a chat network for tons of FOSS projects, taking over the channels because people wanted to have a smooth transition from one network to another is not decent. I think it's not decent to expect that a group that has been bad mouthed repeatedly support the smooth transition for the new network. That honestly, the only part I have trouble with. I think there is a bunch of entitlement but if it wasn't for everyone being pissy that Freenode isn't just rolling over is just disgusting in my opinion. Reminds me of bullies at school who would say and do whatever they want to you but when you hit back you're the villian. > This is a shitshow, especially for this kind of infrastructure. To be fair, it's been a shit show from the start. Seriously, how many I quit letters were flooded on to this paltform and others like it? The one announcement was all that was needed.
- Jiejeing 5y ago
  > I think there is a bunch of entitlement but if it wasn't for everyone being pissy that Freenode isn't just rolling over is just disgusting in my opinion. It certainly nudged everyone still undecided to move to other networks. And it is not OK to suddenly change the terms on which channels are managed, freenode was chosen by the projects on its merits (history, being a haven for all the other projects, its staff, spam handling, and most of all trustworthiness), and if that changes and the only reason you cannot move is because there is now a new policy telling that you can’t do a graceful move, it is bad. This is not VC-funded startups competing for the spot on "best smart hairdryer of the week" and using shady practices to get the audience, this is a volunteer-run open network supposed to cater for the FOSS space, and aggressive lock-in is generally not what is expected here. (heck, I have seen plenty of projects adding "this has moved to gitter/matrix/discourse/etc" in the topic during 15 years I have been on it, without seeing any action taken)

lolc 5y ago

Ok, let's look at Freenode's users as customers. They would not see it that way, but when you choose that perspective, consider how a business should act: If customers are leaving, do not kick them in the butt. Other patrons will notice your lack of grace. (Edit: With customers I mean projects that maintain a channel.) I've so far been bemused by this drama I'm not involved in. Now I can just say that Freenode is burned even if they manage to wrangle that guy from the controls.

cmsj 5y ago
Yup. I started off being mildly dismayed by the drama, but it didn't feel like it needed to affect me or my channels.... ... now I am convinced I want nothing to do with freenode anymore.

tvaughan 5y ago

I have a couple of repos on GitHub that point to their new home on GitLab. Would it be ok if GitHub took over these projects for the same reason?

that_guy_iain 5y ago
Yes. And to think otherwise is acting entitled. GitHub is a for-profit company providing you services for free. It is outrageous to think that they must keep your repository up that is advertising a competitor. The entitlement from the tech scene honestly just stinks.
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  I get why you think this. But that's not how it works. Github is in an implied contract with its users - it provides free infrastructure for people to store their git repos, and in return it is considered the most prominent place to store git repos. Part of that contract is that what you store on Github belongs to you, not Github. If it breaks this contract, then it loses that prominence, and the paid accounts go away with that, too. The entire business model relies on Github being the place everyone goes to, and that is based on this implied contract. Breaking the contract breaks the business model. Same with Freenode. The communities do not belong to Freenode, despite being hosted there. If Freenode breaks this implied contract, then it loses all legitimacy and the communities will leave (as we're seeing happen).
- HomeDeLaPot 5y ago
  Providing free services doesn't give someone the right to be an asshole when users want to leave. It doesn't give them the right to suddenly seize a channel/repo that someone has put a lot of work into building up and then not take flak about it. Sure, the motivation for profit & retention is there, but capitalism != morality.
- Lazare 5y ago
  Github has every right to do that (subject to the term of their user service agreements and applicable local laws, etc., of course). It'd also cause the utter destruction of their current business model. They do NOT do this, because they recognise it is utterly incompatible with their goal of being a trusted hub for open source collaboration, which in turn is a key step in their larger strategy of achieving fat profits and market dominance. > GitHub is a for-profit company Yes, and they want to make a profit, so they don't do dumb stuff that, to pick a random example, a rich guy funding a small volunteer organisation as a hobby might feel comfortable doing.

zozbot234 5y ago

> If you went on to some message board and posted hey come to my message board we're over there. Even though the message board makes no profit, that is still someone's project and they will not take kindy to taking their userbase and will delete the message. Let's not pretend that this is normal. I can freely mention https://lobste.rs https://lobste.rs on HN and my comment is not going to be deleted or flagged even though lobsters is a directly competing message board, as long as my mention is relevant to the discussion. This was a case of channels being taken over for merely mentioning liberachat as something they might care about in the future, not even trying to actively direct users away from Freenode.

larvaetron 5y ago
> even though lobsters is a directly competing message board lobste.rs is invite only, so not exactly an apples to apples comparison.
- Lazare 5y ago
  It's pretty easy to get an invite.
that_guy_iain 5y ago
Come on, we both know those topics mentioning libera.chat were "Go to Libera.chat instead! Our channel is now there. Details are..." If you posted hundreds of messages on this site saying go to lobste.rs then you would get banned. If you posted one I doubt anything happen because that is fair. But lets also add in the fact that libera.chat went around bad mouthing the hell out of freenode and are now crying that freenode won't let them advertise their new network on their network.

tyingq 5y ago

The history of IRC, though, is full of network fork/splits when the network owner goes heavy-handed.

raxxorrax 5y ago

> Expecting otherwise is just acting entitled. As is the idea that you can just buy users.