30 ms·

This is actually pretty disheartening honestly, being blocked by other instances is one thing, but everything else solely for political reasoning, especially F-

by yesco 5y ago

This is actually pretty disheartening honestly, being blocked by other instances is one thing, but everything else solely for political reasoning, especially F-Droid, is further evidence of diminishing integrity in this space.

0xy 5y ago
It's really disappointing to hear F-Droid is just as censorious as the Google Play Store. I guess I assumed they'd be beyond the politicization of Google policies.
- jude- 5y ago
  You are not entitled to use F-Droid's or Google's distribution network, anymore than they are entitled to be installed on your phone.
Iolaum 5y ago
Freedom of association also implies freedom to disassociate with people you don't like ;)
- yesco 5y ago
  That was achieved by the instance level blocking. Clients breaking protocol to antagonize instances the developers don't like and F-Droid arbitrarily kicking apps despite them following the inclusion policy is where this breaks down.
  - devmor 5y ago
    Nonsense. F-Droid kicking apps is still freedom of association, as is Clients changing their protocol. They are also run by entities that have freedom of association. Just as you have the freedom to not use those apps if you don't like them. If I was the developer of a chat client app, I certainly wouldn't want to see screenshots with my app branding in them alongside alt-right content and I would do the same to prevent it from being used for such things.
    - yesco 5y ago
      I will point out that Facebook has just as abhorrent discourse yet the third party clients for it still exist on F-Droid. Which of course they should, F-Droid is a platform that encourages the proliferation of free and open source software. To block access to an open source Facebook client would be antithetical to it's mission. Yet when a rising social media company chooses to deliberately use an open source project as their first party platform, this is when F-Droid decides an exception has to be made? I thought we wanted the world to embrace FOSS, but apparently not.
      - r00fus 5y ago
        F-Droid doesn't need to be consistent or explain their desire to dissociate in any way (legally speaking). So let's speculate: perhaps they agree with you that Facebook has abhorrent discourse but also felt that FB had some beneficial content as well so decided to not ban it not to mention it's popularity. Association with Gab clearly provided no such benefits.
        yesco 5y ago
        Legally speaking F-Droid can do a lot of things, but the law has no bearing on the discussion of whether it was the right thing to do, if it will help with FOSS adoption or finally if they are somehow absolved from criticism for their inconsistent and politically biased policy enforcement. I see no reason why we should restrict FOSS adoption to only people within an arbitrary and unrelated political sphere. Everyone wins when everyone is using FOSS, even the people we don't like. Unfortunately F-Droids decision on this matter hurts FOSS adoption from conservatives who will only continue to associate FOSS with the left-wing.
        r00fus 5y ago
        So as an opinion between F-Droid team vs. a random Internet forum poster, one could be reasonable in trusting F-Droid team on what would promote FOSS.
  - jude- 5y ago
    You are not entitled to use F-Droid's distribution network, anymore than they are entitled to be installed on your phone.
genericuser314 5y ago
Or, just a different sort of integrity than you had in mind.
- EGreg 5y ago
  I wonder if you can always say this about anything, replacng the operative word “integrity” here with whatever
  - rackjack 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_discord https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_discord
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      I honestly think that is the cause of half of arguments that occur, not that the same people wouldn't disagree even if they paid attention to this, but it's certainly where they seem to get stuck.
- gruez 5y ago
  And that sort of integrity is... what? Only supporting speech that you agree with?
  - dessant 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
    - dang 5y ago
      Please don't post canned arguments to HN. They point to super-repetitive/generic places, and those usually get nasty, as indignation rushes in to fill the curiosity vacuum. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - 5y ago
causi 5y ago
Indeed. There's nothing in the F-Droid Inclusion Policy that covers the removal of Gab.
- Jaepa 5y ago
  Considering that it's a list of what _can_ be included, this just seems like a rhetorical blowfish.
  - causi 5y ago
    What do you mean?
avs733 5y ago
you could alternately classify their reasoning as 'basic humanity' rather than political. When we are discussing the value or humanity of certain groups the discussion goes well beyond the label of 'political' but everything else solely for basic humanity reasoning...doesn't have the same ring.
- 0xy 5y ago
  Tearing down freedom of speech values doesn't scream pro-humanity to me, but I'm sure the project has justified it to themselves using some political arguments.
  - krapp 5y ago
    Freedom of speech has always included the right to choose not to give a platform to speech with which you disagree. Compelled speech by definition is not free speech.
    - 0xy 5y ago
      The ACLU has repeatedly defended the KKK and other white supremacists. The premier free speech organization disagrees with you.
      - macintux 5y ago
        Defending their right to free speech isn't the same as providing a platform for it, so I'm not sure what point you're making.
        BitwiseFool 5y ago
        The ACLU sued in order to force the local government to allow the marches to take place. They were quite literally demanding that a platform (the city streets) be provided for the speech they wanted to have.
        5y ago
newacct583 5y ago
Why? Most of the junk gab is famous for would get you banned here on HN too. Content moderation is... just content moderation. Gab has an absolute right under the first amendment to be able to speak. No one has an obligation to repeat what they say.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  > Gab has an absolute right under the first amendment to be able to speak. Gab has an absolute right under the first amendment to be able to speak most of the time without government intervention. ftfy. Speech is not unlimited. Freedom of speech only applies regarding government censorship.
  - throwaways885 5y ago
    Freedom of speech is the concept, and 1st amendment is an implementation. The maximal possible implementation given the rest of constitution that came before it. So it's not just government in principle, only in practice.
    - oblio 5y ago
      At best, it's against government intervention and in public spaces. If you come to my house and start shouting nonsense you will be very unceremoniously and quite authoritarianly be kicked out and not much anyone can do about that :-)
      - BitwiseFool 5y ago
        It's a fun metaphor but there are so many ways in which it does not apply to the topic at hand. This isn't about an individuals autonomy on their own property, it's more about a societal contract and expectations over civil liberties / human rights. Comparing it to kicking people out of your house is not even on the same level.
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
      I like to say that the Eight Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment likewise only applies to the government.
rvz 5y ago
> but everything else solely for political reasoning, especially F-Droid, is further evidence of diminishing integrity in this space. Supposedly F-Droid is 'Free software' but also violated the first freedom on how a user should user their software as they wish. So does that mean F-Droid is NOT free software and on top of that FLOSS (Free Libre Open Source Software) Facebook, Twitter, Telegram, Mastodon or Matrix clients should also not be packaged because there are bad actors on those platforms who are harassing other users? Oh dear.
- Spivak 5y ago
  There are some big misconceptions about FOSS software here. F-Droid is FOSS, this means that the source code for both the client and server are available, can be copied, modified, and used by anyone for any purpose. This does not mean that f-droid.org and the official f-droid android app — a particular installation and distribution of the software has to do… well anything really outside of complying with the license terms [1]. That’s kinda the point. They’re not obligated to host any content they don’t want for any reason no matter how inconsistent, they’re allowed to build or not build additional features as they see fit, and provide or refuse service to anyone — at least as far as the license is concerned. Absolutely no software freedoms were violated by fdroid. [1] And even then since they’re also the copyright holders they technically don’t even have to do that.
chalst 5y ago
F-Droid's repository excludes several projects because it might cause them trouble. For example, they block forks of the Signal client that connects to Signal's servers, a violation of Signal's TOS but not F-Droid's. Hosting projects in their repository causes work for them and they are right to exercise pragmatism in what they choose to host. There's more freedom with F-Droid than Google Play, because F-Droid allows its users to use rival repositories as well as its own.

by yesco 5y ago

0xy 5y ago

It's really disappointing to hear F-Droid is just as censorious as the Google Play Store. I guess I assumed they'd be beyond the politicization of Google policies.

jude- 5y ago
You are not entitled to use F-Droid's or Google's distribution network, anymore than they are entitled to be installed on your phone.

Iolaum 5y ago

Freedom of association also implies freedom to disassociate with people you don't like ;)

yesco 5y ago
That was achieved by the instance level blocking. Clients breaking protocol to antagonize instances the developers don't like and F-Droid arbitrarily kicking apps despite them following the inclusion policy is where this breaks down.
- devmor 5y ago
  Nonsense. F-Droid kicking apps is still freedom of association, as is Clients changing their protocol. They are also run by entities that have freedom of association. Just as you have the freedom to not use those apps if you don't like them. If I was the developer of a chat client app, I certainly wouldn't want to see screenshots with my app branding in them alongside alt-right content and I would do the same to prevent it from being used for such things.
  - yesco 5y ago
    I will point out that Facebook has just as abhorrent discourse yet the third party clients for it still exist on F-Droid. Which of course they should, F-Droid is a platform that encourages the proliferation of free and open source software. To block access to an open source Facebook client would be antithetical to it's mission. Yet when a rising social media company chooses to deliberately use an open source project as their first party platform, this is when F-Droid decides an exception has to be made? I thought we wanted the world to embrace FOSS, but apparently not.
    - r00fus 5y ago
      F-Droid doesn't need to be consistent or explain their desire to dissociate in any way (legally speaking). So let's speculate: perhaps they agree with you that Facebook has abhorrent discourse but also felt that FB had some beneficial content as well so decided to not ban it not to mention it's popularity. Association with Gab clearly provided no such benefits.
      - yesco 5y ago
        Legally speaking F-Droid can do a lot of things, but the law has no bearing on the discussion of whether it was the right thing to do, if it will help with FOSS adoption or finally if they are somehow absolved from criticism for their inconsistent and politically biased policy enforcement. I see no reason why we should restrict FOSS adoption to only people within an arbitrary and unrelated political sphere. Everyone wins when everyone is using FOSS, even the people we don't like. Unfortunately F-Droids decision on this matter hurts FOSS adoption from conservatives who will only continue to associate FOSS with the left-wing.
        r00fus 5y ago
        So as an opinion between F-Droid team vs. a random Internet forum poster, one could be reasonable in trusting F-Droid team on what would promote FOSS.
- jude- 5y ago
  You are not entitled to use F-Droid's distribution network, anymore than they are entitled to be installed on your phone.

genericuser314 5y ago

Or, just a different sort of integrity than you had in mind.

EGreg 5y ago
I wonder if you can always say this about anything, replacng the operative word “integrity” here with whatever
- rackjack 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_discord https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_discord
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    I honestly think that is the cause of half of arguments that occur, not that the same people wouldn't disagree even if they paid attention to this, but it's certainly where they seem to get stuck.
gruez 5y ago
And that sort of integrity is... what? Only supporting speech that you agree with?
- dessant 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - dang 5y ago
    Please don't post canned arguments to HN. They point to super-repetitive/generic places, and those usually get nasty, as indignation rushes in to fill the curiosity vacuum. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - 5y ago

causi 5y ago

Indeed. There's nothing in the F-Droid Inclusion Policy that covers the removal of Gab.

Jaepa 5y ago
Considering that it's a list of what _can_ be included, this just seems like a rhetorical blowfish.
- causi 5y ago
  What do you mean?

avs733 5y ago

you could alternately classify their reasoning as 'basic humanity' rather than political. When we are discussing the value or humanity of certain groups the discussion goes well beyond the label of 'political' but everything else solely for basic humanity reasoning...doesn't have the same ring.

0xy 5y ago
Tearing down freedom of speech values doesn't scream pro-humanity to me, but I'm sure the project has justified it to themselves using some political arguments.
- krapp 5y ago
  Freedom of speech has always included the right to choose not to give a platform to speech with which you disagree. Compelled speech by definition is not free speech.
  - 0xy 5y ago
    The ACLU has repeatedly defended the KKK and other white supremacists. The premier free speech organization disagrees with you.
    - macintux 5y ago
      Defending their right to free speech isn't the same as providing a platform for it, so I'm not sure what point you're making.
      - BitwiseFool 5y ago
        The ACLU sued in order to force the local government to allow the marches to take place. They were quite literally demanding that a platform (the city streets) be provided for the speech they wanted to have.
        5y ago

newacct583 5y ago

Why? Most of the junk gab is famous for would get you banned here on HN too. Content moderation is... just content moderation. Gab has an absolute right under the first amendment to be able to speak. No one has an obligation to repeat what they say.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
> Gab has an absolute right under the first amendment to be able to speak. Gab has an absolute right under the first amendment to be able to speak most of the time without government intervention. ftfy. Speech is not unlimited. Freedom of speech only applies regarding government censorship.
- throwaways885 5y ago
  Freedom of speech is the concept, and 1st amendment is an implementation. The maximal possible implementation given the rest of constitution that came before it. So it's not just government in principle, only in practice.
  - oblio 5y ago
    At best, it's against government intervention and in public spaces. If you come to my house and start shouting nonsense you will be very unceremoniously and quite authoritarianly be kicked out and not much anyone can do about that :-)
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
      It's a fun metaphor but there are so many ways in which it does not apply to the topic at hand. This isn't about an individuals autonomy on their own property, it's more about a societal contract and expectations over civil liberties / human rights. Comparing it to kicking people out of your house is not even on the same level.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    I like to say that the Eight Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment likewise only applies to the government.

rvz 5y ago

> but everything else solely for political reasoning, especially F-Droid, is further evidence of diminishing integrity in this space. Supposedly F-Droid is 'Free software' but also violated the first freedom on how a user should user their software as they wish. So does that mean F-Droid is NOT free software and on top of that FLOSS (Free Libre Open Source Software) Facebook, Twitter, Telegram, Mastodon or Matrix clients should also not be packaged because there are bad actors on those platforms who are harassing other users? Oh dear.

Spivak 5y ago
There are some big misconceptions about FOSS software here. F-Droid is FOSS, this means that the source code for both the client and server are available, can be copied, modified, and used by anyone for any purpose. This does not mean that f-droid.org and the official f-droid android app — a particular installation and distribution of the software has to do… well anything really outside of complying with the license terms [1]. That’s kinda the point. They’re not obligated to host any content they don’t want for any reason no matter how inconsistent, they’re allowed to build or not build additional features as they see fit, and provide or refuse service to anyone — at least as far as the license is concerned. Absolutely no software freedoms were violated by fdroid. [1] And even then since they’re also the copyright holders they technically don’t even have to do that.

chalst 5y ago

F-Droid's repository excludes several projects because it might cause them trouble. For example, they block forks of the Signal client that connects to Signal's servers, a violation of Signal's TOS but not F-Droid's. Hosting projects in their repository causes work for them and they are right to exercise pragmatism in what they choose to host. There's more freedom with F-Droid than Google Play, because F-Droid allows its users to use rival repositories as well as its own.