4 ms·

That was a reference to your line, "It seems that not only has 'community of leftist[s]' given up on free speech (as is the vogue)..." You seem to place quite

That was a reference to your line, "It seems that not only has 'community of leftist[s]' given up on free speech (as is the vogue)..." You seem to place quite a bit of value in free speech, yet are bothered when the creators of this project use theirs to set boundaries, going so far as to call it "hostile." It's unfortunate that you find it hostile - I consider the hateful conduct that they're banning much more hostile and support their methods of collaboration to that end.

brigandish 4y ago
I called their responses in the issue thread hostile, which they were. As to the limits of free speech, they're not just limiting what they hear/see, they're deciding to do that for others too. That seems to go against the ideas of free speech and of federation, especially in the open source space. > It's unfortunate that you find it hostile - I consider the hateful conduct that they're banning much more hostile and support their methods of collaboration to that end. It is hostile, but how is their hostility in that case justified by their stance against certain forms of prejudice? I don't see the justification. Moreover, the list of prejudices (if they are, they're just vague assertions at this point) they gave is not necessarily hostile. For example, a racist might publish a paper saying that the IQ of one race is less than another's. That is racist but not hostile. If they were to write "thus we should eliminate them" or "I hate them because of this" or, to a member of that race were to show any sort of aggression for simply being of that race, that would be hostile. It is eminently possible (and I'd say, easy) to be against hostility of any sort discussed here, and against racism while also noting that they're not synonyms and that they don't always overlap. Nuance exists, even when discussing prejudice.
- test098 4y ago
  > As to the limits of free speech, they're not just limiting what they hear/see, they're deciding to do that for others too It's their project, they can do what they please with it. This is the premise of FOSS, which makes no claims as to how maintainers must communicate with collaborators or how projects must be maintained. > go against the ideas of free speech and of federation, especially in the open source space Those are your values, not the values of the maintainers. Maybe their relationship to open source is different than yours. Maybe their idea of free speech is different than yours. This is no more than you forcing your values on them.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    > It's their project, they can do what they please with it. Who was questioning that? No one, thanks for noticing. > This is the premise of FOSS, which makes no claims as to how maintainers must communicate with collaborators or how projects must be maintained. It is not, however, any protection against criticism about what they choose to do with that project. If you open source a program that actively harms any or all of the groups the Lemmy project is (ostensibly) trying to protect in its claim, would that protect you from criticism? Not in the slightest. > > go against the ideas of free speech and of federation, especially in the open source space > Those are your values, not the values of the maintainers. Again, thanks for noticing. > Maybe their relationship to open source is different than yours. And? > Maybe their idea of free speech is different than yours. Clearly, it's why I'm criticising them. > This is no more than you forcing your values on them. Pray tell how I have applied force?
    - test098 4y ago
      > Who was questioning that? No one, thanks for noticing. You're welcome! I'm pointing that out because apparently you haven't noticed that, hence your criticism. > It is not, however, any protection against criticism about what they choose to do with that project. If you open source a program that actively harms any or all of the groups the Lemmy project is (ostensibly) trying to protect in its claim, would that protect you from criticism? Not in the slightest. Yeah, I'm not debating that. > Again, thanks for noticing. Again, you're welcome!
      - brigandish 4y ago
        > apparently you haven't noticed that, hence your criticism. If you conflate criticism with being against freedom then I can see why you'd come to this erroneous conclusion, and many of the others you've made. > Yeah, I'm not debating that. It's not protection against criticism but to criticise is against the freedom of the project. Right.

brigandish 4y ago

I called their responses in the issue thread hostile, which they were. As to the limits of free speech, they're not just limiting what they hear/see, they're deciding to do that for others too. That seems to go against the ideas of free speech and of federation, especially in the open source space. > It's unfortunate that you find it hostile - I consider the hateful conduct that they're banning much more hostile and support their methods of collaboration to that end. It is hostile, but how is their hostility in that case justified by their stance against certain forms of prejudice? I don't see the justification. Moreover, the list of prejudices (if they are, they're just vague assertions at this point) they gave is not necessarily hostile. For example, a racist might publish a paper saying that the IQ of one race is less than another's. That is racist but not hostile. If they were to write "thus we should eliminate them" or "I hate them because of this" or, to a member of that race were to show any sort of aggression for simply being of that race, that would be hostile. It is eminently possible (and I'd say, easy) to be against hostility of any sort discussed here, and against racism while also noting that they're not synonyms and that they don't always overlap. Nuance exists, even when discussing prejudice.

test098 4y ago
> As to the limits of free speech, they're not just limiting what they hear/see, they're deciding to do that for others too It's their project, they can do what they please with it. This is the premise of FOSS, which makes no claims as to how maintainers must communicate with collaborators or how projects must be maintained. > go against the ideas of free speech and of federation, especially in the open source space Those are your values, not the values of the maintainers. Maybe their relationship to open source is different than yours. Maybe their idea of free speech is different than yours. This is no more than you forcing your values on them.
- brigandish 4y ago
  > It's their project, they can do what they please with it. Who was questioning that? No one, thanks for noticing. > This is the premise of FOSS, which makes no claims as to how maintainers must communicate with collaborators or how projects must be maintained. It is not, however, any protection against criticism about what they choose to do with that project. If you open source a program that actively harms any or all of the groups the Lemmy project is (ostensibly) trying to protect in its claim, would that protect you from criticism? Not in the slightest. > > go against the ideas of free speech and of federation, especially in the open source space > Those are your values, not the values of the maintainers. Again, thanks for noticing. > Maybe their relationship to open source is different than yours. And? > Maybe their idea of free speech is different than yours. Clearly, it's why I'm criticising them. > This is no more than you forcing your values on them. Pray tell how I have applied force?
  - test098 4y ago
    > Who was questioning that? No one, thanks for noticing. You're welcome! I'm pointing that out because apparently you haven't noticed that, hence your criticism. > It is not, however, any protection against criticism about what they choose to do with that project. If you open source a program that actively harms any or all of the groups the Lemmy project is (ostensibly) trying to protect in its claim, would that protect you from criticism? Not in the slightest. Yeah, I'm not debating that. > Again, thanks for noticing. Again, you're welcome!
    - brigandish 4y ago
      > apparently you haven't noticed that, hence your criticism. If you conflate criticism with being against freedom then I can see why you'd come to this erroneous conclusion, and many of the others you've made. > Yeah, I'm not debating that. It's not protection against criticism but to criticise is against the freedom of the project. Right.