4 ms·

> If your morals don't hold up when pushed to their limits I think you're missing the point here that their morals aren't your morals and they can be entirely

> If your morals don't hold up when pushed to their limits I think you're missing the point here that their morals aren't your morals and they can be entirely self-consistent and do what they're doing if they don't share your exact priorities. They obviously prioritize other concerns above freedom of speech absolutism and they aren't hiding that, thus remaining entirely consistent within their frame of reference.

totony 5y ago
I don't doubt they have their own morals, but these same people say they hold free speech as moral. The whole point of free speech is to allow for speech you find reprehensible. If not, what's the point?
- CarelessExpert 5y ago
  > The whole point of free speech is to allow for speech you find reprehensible No one is stopping Gab from speaking. FDroid is just refusing to amplify their speech. Since when did "free speech" == "freedom to force other people to publish my speech"? But you know what, here's an idea: I have a sign I want to put on your lawn. I'm afraid it's an incredibly offensive sign and you and your neighbours might not like it. But I wanna put it on your lawn anyway. Judging by your comments here, I assume you're totally cool with that, right? I mean, according to you, denying my request to put my incredibly offensive lawn sign in front of your house would be an abridgement of my freedom of speech, right?
  - totony 5y ago
    But my lawn is not a platform. And even then, FDroid is a small enough platform that they should be allowed to do whatever they want. But then it's OK to point out the perceived hypocrisy in having a free software platform that censors apps they disagree with. Free software is not really about free speech, but usually both philosophies are held together since they are somewhat related.
    - CarelessExpert 5y ago
      > But my lawn is not a platform. Sure it is. It's a platform of one. Or are you now saying these rights kinda depend? If so, what's the threshold? What makes your lawn special? Does it need to be a particularly big lawn? Do you need to have control of a lot of different lawns? I'm really confused. You seemed so certain that free speech was an absolute right, and that I can force others to amplify my speech, but now here you are suggesting there may be caveats... > Free software is not really about free speech, but usually both philosophies are held together since they are somewhat related. According to you. I certainly don't see them as being connected whatsoever. Maybe your real problem is you and FDroid see the purpose of open source and free software differently.
      - totony 5y ago
        I think you're being disingenuous, I don't use my lawn to distribute other people's apps/signs, it's not its purpose, and I don't advertise it as such. Also: >FDroid is a small enough platform that they should be allowed to do whatever they want. But then it's OK to point out the perceived hypocrisy in having a free software platform that censors apps they disagree with.
        CarelessExpert 5y ago
        > I don't use my lawn to distribute other people's apps/signs, it's not its purpose, and I don't advertise it as such. And I suppose somewhere FDroid advertises itself as an open, censorship-free site for app distribution with no caveats or restrictions? If so, please, point me to your evidence. If it's just because "but they claim to value free software", see my reply (which included ninja edits): free software != free speech. No, they are not in fact related in any way. One can be supportive of free software without being an absolutist regarding freedom of expression. Of course, that's understandable confusion. Free (as in no cost), free (as in I can control my own systems and products), and free (as in I can speak without government censorship) are all very different uses of the word "free", and I can see how folks might get them mixed up.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  They don't think that's the point, which is what matters. They clearly have limits to free speech that you don't have because they are not free speech absolutists (like most people) while you are a free speech absolutist. They probably draw a limit at speech that they consider harmful[1], as most people do. If most people didn't have these limits, then harassment, death threats and so on would all be generally acceptable and legal, but they aren't. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

totony 5y ago

I don't doubt they have their own morals, but these same people say they hold free speech as moral. The whole point of free speech is to allow for speech you find reprehensible. If not, what's the point?

CarelessExpert 5y ago
> The whole point of free speech is to allow for speech you find reprehensible No one is stopping Gab from speaking. FDroid is just refusing to amplify their speech. Since when did "free speech" == "freedom to force other people to publish my speech"? But you know what, here's an idea: I have a sign I want to put on your lawn. I'm afraid it's an incredibly offensive sign and you and your neighbours might not like it. But I wanna put it on your lawn anyway. Judging by your comments here, I assume you're totally cool with that, right? I mean, according to you, denying my request to put my incredibly offensive lawn sign in front of your house would be an abridgement of my freedom of speech, right?
- totony 5y ago
  But my lawn is not a platform. And even then, FDroid is a small enough platform that they should be allowed to do whatever they want. But then it's OK to point out the perceived hypocrisy in having a free software platform that censors apps they disagree with. Free software is not really about free speech, but usually both philosophies are held together since they are somewhat related.
  - CarelessExpert 5y ago
    > But my lawn is not a platform. Sure it is. It's a platform of one. Or are you now saying these rights kinda depend? If so, what's the threshold? What makes your lawn special? Does it need to be a particularly big lawn? Do you need to have control of a lot of different lawns? I'm really confused. You seemed so certain that free speech was an absolute right, and that I can force others to amplify my speech, but now here you are suggesting there may be caveats... > Free software is not really about free speech, but usually both philosophies are held together since they are somewhat related. According to you. I certainly don't see them as being connected whatsoever. Maybe your real problem is you and FDroid see the purpose of open source and free software differently.
    - totony 5y ago
      I think you're being disingenuous, I don't use my lawn to distribute other people's apps/signs, it's not its purpose, and I don't advertise it as such. Also: >FDroid is a small enough platform that they should be allowed to do whatever they want. But then it's OK to point out the perceived hypocrisy in having a free software platform that censors apps they disagree with.
      - CarelessExpert 5y ago
        > I don't use my lawn to distribute other people's apps/signs, it's not its purpose, and I don't advertise it as such. And I suppose somewhere FDroid advertises itself as an open, censorship-free site for app distribution with no caveats or restrictions? If so, please, point me to your evidence. If it's just because "but they claim to value free software", see my reply (which included ninja edits): free software != free speech. No, they are not in fact related in any way. One can be supportive of free software without being an absolutist regarding freedom of expression. Of course, that's understandable confusion. Free (as in no cost), free (as in I can control my own systems and products), and free (as in I can speak without government censorship) are all very different uses of the word "free", and I can see how folks might get them mixed up.
guerrilla 5y ago
They don't think that's the point, which is what matters. They clearly have limits to free speech that you don't have because they are not free speech absolutists (like most people) while you are a free speech absolutist. They probably draw a limit at speech that they consider harmful[1], as most people do. If most people didn't have these limits, then harassment, death threats and so on would all be generally acceptable and legal, but they aren't. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance