7 ms·

For context and history about Soapbox: it originated from the Gab.com's frontend, and is developed by Alex Gleason, an infamous transphobe/alt-right dude. His

• rglullis 4y ago
  I thought that (A)GPL only requested you to redistribute source code changes. I wasn't aware that it forced you to sympathize with the ideology of the main developer, or even to care about the political inclinations or beliefs of all random contributors.
  • dividedbyzero 4y ago
    Why would you think it does?
  • despera 4y ago
    Oh come on it's not such a big brain moment the fact that there are more quality elements involved for projects beyond a license that someone would take in account. I'm pretty sure you can think many just by yourself but elude you at this moment for "reasons" that have exactly to do with sympathizing with the main developer or contributors.
  • Fnoord 4y ago
    True, I mean ESR is known for being pro gun, and a lot of people here in Europe would not agree with that. However, if you don't agree with the primary developer on something as fundamental as your being, chances are you don't want to collaborate with them, do PRs, or give them feedback. On top of that, the person has caused drama, which is a sign of instability to a FOSS project (just take a look at all the drama TdR (or lets call him deraadt@) caused over the years...). Given how easy it is to obfuscate a vulnerability in code I would not want to run code programmed primarily by someone who has a peculiar world view (except in a sandbox). At least its a yellow flag to audit it well (but that is no guarantee). With regards to FOSS projects its just a time bomb till some nefarious actor (Russian, Chinese, North Korean, Iranian, etc) does something bad to a popular FOSS project. But the worries are the same when the author is unknown (TrueCrypt, for example), and some people have been paranoid about SELinux ever since. Taking above into account IMO the heads up is fair. And with all that, you're still free to make up your own mind. Nobody is telling you that you should avoid the project. They're suggesting you look into it.
  • mrtksn 4y ago
    This is a puzzling statement, probably a straw man fallacy. The OP doesn't claim that anyone infringes any licences, just points out a relationship and political activism involvement. People are free to care or not care about it. Actually, it would be wise to care about it because the political bias might need to be held in check. People from that ideology were involved in many very illegal stuff, including terrorist attacks or coup attempts. Some people might want to distance themselves from all that even if the developer doesn't have any involvement in the illegal part of their activism.
    • rglullis 4y ago
      Does the same logic apply to the lemmy developers who are openly hardline tankies and do not hide their fondness of Stalinism-Marxism? Because I'd rather just ignore all that bullshit and use their software instead of being beholden to reddit.
      • mrtksn 4y ago
        Why wouldn't it apply? Is anyone forced to contribute to project of developers with any kind of ideology? In the reality I live, people ignore or care about whatever they want. How does your reality look like?
        • rglullis 4y ago
          > Is anyone forced to contribute to project of developers with any kind of ideology? Not even talking about contribution. I am talking about people trying to boycott those who simply use the software. There are actual mastodon admins who block instances on the mere grounds of having deployed soapbox.
          • mrtksn 4y ago
            So? Do you think that some people are entitled of audience and their right for audience is taken away? Maybe this SJW culture went too far, I think it's time to push back against stuff like right for audience. Just let people make their own decisions. If they don't want to be involved(use or contribute) in this piece of software for whatever reason, people must be free to do so.
  • wut42 4y ago
    And I never ever said this. You are definitely free to use it, to not care about ideology of people making software. I think it's worthwhile to note this. As I said elsewhere, my comment wasn't to tell people to avoid Soapbox (nor even to start a pointless debate like some sub-comments had) (and, heck, I even use an instance nowadays which sometimes use Soapbox; even if I personally despise the main author). The fedi is also quite political, and as others and I said, just barely using Soapbox could get you auto-blocked or auto-judged.
    • rglullis 4y ago
      > just barely using Soapbox could get you auto-blocked or auto-judged. Few things scream "I don't mind totalitarianism when it is pointed at those I don't like" more than that.
      • wut42 4y ago
        I have never said anything like that, I just again, stated a fact. That i'm pro- or against this is out of the topic; but while I don't entierly agree with that, I can definitely understand the _reasons_ they are doing it. And we cannot really call this totalitarianism, we are talking about a dozens of servers in a decentralized network, not about the government of a country, or laws.
  • Seirdy 4y ago
    Gleason is an influential member of the fediverse because of Soapbox. Soapbox adoption generally makes him more relevant and more popular. This clout amplifies his transmisiac message. It's similar to JK Rowling getting famous off the Harry Potter franchise and using that clout in a way that causes harm, prompting others to stop promoting her works and thus stop feeding her positive attention. Having read one of those books or having watched one of her movies doesn't make you a transophobe, but promoting her works gives her the means to do harm. Moreover, the majority of soapbox instances tend to be freeze peach servers that either contain or amplify other harassers. Good soapbox instances tend to be the exception rather than the norm.
• hutzlibu 4y ago
  "an infamous transphobe/alt-right " Out of curiosity, has he done more, than saying he thinks that transgender is imaginary?
  • wut42 4y ago
    I have really stopped following the Gleason' arc like three years ago, so I don't remember. He surely does lot of crappy comments but I cannot remember the specifics, maybe someone with a larger memory than mine can reply to this.
    • BrotherBisquick 4y ago
      "I can't recall." You'd do the Gipper proud.
      • wut42 4y ago
        Sorry to not have kept a complete collection and memory all a random asshole on the Internet has said.
  • BrotherBisquick 4y ago
    The same thing JK Rowling did to earn death threats- absolutely nothing except express mild skepticism.
• josteink 4y ago
  [flagged]
  • wizzwizz4 4y ago
    [flagged]
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • ThrowawayTestr 4y ago
      [flagged]
• aorth 4y ago
  Your comment was better when it was strictly informational. I didn't know Soapbox originated from Gab. That's interesting... As to your other assertion, the author's view on sex and gender would have been considered liberal ten years ago. The section on his views in this post below is definitely not right wing or conservative at all. https://blog.alexgleason.me/trans/ https://blog.alexgleason.me/trans/ At most you can say the author speaks without thinking, or perhaps is just rude. Maybe he's just fed up, I've never heard of him before today so I can't say.
  • wut42 4y ago
    I mean, it is strictly informational. I'm just pointing out a fact, that also made a couple of core devs go away.
    • aorth 4y ago
      Calling someone a "transphobe" is not strictly informational. What does that even mean? There are trans people who are against the trans self identity movement. And there are trans people who think that gender != sex. On that note, why does the trans activist movement require that trans people must LITERALLY be the sex they self identify as? Why is that the one criteria?
  • wizzwizz4 4y ago
    > As to your other assertion, the author's view on sex and gender would have been considered liberal ten years ago. I feel the need to address this.[0] The page you linked displays incredible ignorance of the past century of feminist thought (including that of the radical feminism movement). > If we really cannot tell a man from a woman, then how is it possible that women are even oppressed? Because a patriarchal society views femininity and womanhood as lesser, rightful targets for abuse. People are oppressed on many other lines which are, similarly, not rooted in some fundamental biological reality (e.g. race, social class) and are similarly punished for attempting to breach these boundaries (e.g. refusing to appropriately signal their group membership; acting in a manner not permitted to those of their station). The patriarchy is a social construction, and it can be dismantled. The passage of Julia Serano he's paraphrased is not saying "we really cannot tell a man from a woman". I'll quote a few paragraphs,[1] for context: > Claims that trans women are not women often rely on essentialist (and therefore incorrect) assumptions about biology. For instance, people might argue that trans women are not “genetically female,” despite the fact that we cannot readily ascertain anybody’s sex chromosomes. Indeed, most people have never even had their sex chromosomes examined, and those that do are sometimes surprised by the results. > Other common appeals to biology center on reproduction — e.g., stating that trans women have not experienced menstruation, or cannot become pregnant. This ignores the fact that some cisgender women never menstruate and/or are unable to become pregnant. > Claims about genitals are similarly problematic: Women’s genitals vary greatly, and as with chromosomes and reproductive capabilities, we cannot readily see other people’s genitals in everyday encounters. If you and I were to meet, should I refuse to recognize or refer to you as a woman unless you show me your genitals? And frankly, what could possibly be more sexist than reducing a woman to what’s between her legs? Isn’t that precisely what sexist men have been doing to women for centuries on end? > I would argue that all of these appeals to biology are inherently anti-feminist. Sexists routinely dismiss women by pointing to real or presumed biological differences. Feminists have long challenged the objectification of our bodies, and have argued that we are not limited by our biology. So it is hypocritical for any self-identified feminist to use “biology” and “body parts” arguments in their attempts to dismiss trans women. It's saying (among other things) that nobody – not even Alex – uses his standards to distinguish men from women; which is true. This is something feminists have been saying since at least the 1940s; and it's unsurprising it doesn't make much sense when reframed in Alex's preferred ontology. > If it's true that privilege is determined by gender identity and not sex, Privilege is, among other things, determined by gender expression. History is rife with women pretending to be men in order to benefit from the patriarchy in some way; usually to get a job that they would otherwise have been barred from. Part of masculine expression is putting (other) women down, by the way.[2] Women often have to wear business suits (express themselves in a "traditionally masculine" manner) in order to be taken seriously, despite the pushback they often get for exactly that presentation. A businessman wearing high heels and a skirt (enforced office attire for women, in many places) would be ridiculed, and would experience a reduction in respect – a partial loss of male privilege, plus a punishment for stepping outside his box and violating social norms. Femininity = bad, weak; masculinity = good, powerful. This is basic, basic stuff. > Transgender ideology takes us a step backwards. A man who wears a dress must be a woman. "Feminists hate men! Hah! QED." By Brandolini's Law,[3] this doesn't even bear rebuttal. Read, maybe, a single transgender feminist thinker? This section even contradicts itself later on: > Trans advocates will deny this. […] To that I say: then what does it mean to be a woman? This is a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument. Karl Popper's criticism of Sigmund Freud comes to mind. There's nothing else worth discussing on this page. It's a mixture of low-substance bullshit, not-even-wrong, appeals to "urgh, weird", and misrepresented statistics. (Seriously: even when the cherry-picked stats are relevant, click through to the sources. They don't say what he says they say.) These are not the words of a truth-seeking feminist. [0]: https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/ [1]: https://juliaserano.medium.com/debunking-trans-women-are-not-women-arguments-85fd5ab0e19c https://juliaserano.medium.com/debunking-trans-women-are-not... [2]: See "toxic masculinity". [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law
• laserdancepony 4y ago
  [flagged]
• ThrowawayTestr 4y ago
  How is any of that relevant to this software?
• unicornporn 4y ago
  I listened to https://www.heterodorx.com/podcast/episode-69-fediverse-follies-with-alex-gleason/ https://www.heterodorx.com/podcast/episode-69-fediverse-foll... and I wonder what makes you say he's "an alt-right dude". He's a free speech advocate, but at the same time he thinks that the one of the great things about the fediverse is that instances can block each other to shut off speech that they don't find acceptable. He's a vegan that classifies himself as a libtard.
  • wut42 4y ago
    Working with Gab & Truth Social is kinda the indicator of alt-right-ness I'd say no? :) I agree that he got some _correct_ views- mostly anyone does; but I read the guy posts over the years, it's widely known on the fediverse that he's pushing alt-right stuff. He's also loves to use many of the slang they use. It's his behaviour on the Fediverse & related spaces that made me (and many others) think/know he is alt-right.