ばねちゃん 🏴‍☠️ @bane@librem.one

An app decides to block gab users: *drama*
An app decides to explicitly not block gab users: *drama*

@dielan @caseyp The true boomer
image.png

@felix @maloki @bane Says the one with the murderer and concentration camp wardan as avatar. Torba is so inept, that he only has a gitlab instance that says he is using going to use mastadon and no idea how to migrate to it and all you commies are already playing yourself.

@kumicota
Its not about either of those actually

tl;dr Gab - which is a scam social network for facebook boomers, is forking mastodon so they can use existing fedi apps (gab apps are banned from app stores) and their users can self host the gab fork and create a federated gab that might (but might not) also be compatible with mastodon & the rest of the fedi (so we can see them)

To protect their apps from getting kicked off the App Store and Google Play popular fedi apps Tusky and Fedilab decided to implement code in their apps that makes it so gab domains can't log in (their fork doesn't exist yet, we don't even know what the url will be)

there's nothing wrong with this protection measure to stay on app stores imo, but its a drastic measure. I predicted weeks ago that people like in this screenshot I posted would come out and say they should also block servers they just don't like. Sure they mention FSE by name but they really mean instances like pl.smuglo.li, shitposter.club, niu.moe, and any other instance that doesn't bend the knee to those obnoxious "recommended instance block" posts they make.

What ppl are talking about today is that the fedilab dev reached out to google and didn't hear back if this gab bullshit would get his app banned so he said he wasn't going to do it. That it isn't the apps place to implement that block.

I agree with his logic. On Firefox today you can go to gabs website, yet Firefox is on the app store. Should firefox block them at the application layer? I think not, and the fedilab guy agrees.

This is exactly why apps doing the instance blocking is a slippery slope. here's some mastodon idiot arguing for the blocking of """known nazi havens""", not just blocking Gab when it comes here.

In 2019 you can be called a Nazi for any reason, like drinking milk or enjoying video games, when really you are far from what they say you are.

While opposing actual, real nazis is a genuine moral imperative, that's not what these people are doing. They are just in the business of giving anybody they don't like an extreme label to justify drastic action in response.
4574Screenshot_20190619-140631_…
3961Screenshot_20190619-140649_…

.

​
google.jpg

Send me a letter!
1000 Bourbon St #207
New Orleans LA 70116

I just payed for another 6 months of having a postal box and I just checked and had no mail the last two months. Help me not waste my box!

Just landed in L.A.
nk8p3pl8KItW5w.mp4

For your security, make sure you close your browser.

🇺🇸 One more mechanical keyboard from 90's was returned back to life: IBM PC AT Strong Man KM988KKB88

🇺🇦 Ще одна механічна клавіатура з 90-х повернулася до життя: IBM PC AT Strong Man KM988KKB88

#MechanicalKeyboards #geekstuff #keyboards
photo_2019-06-19_14-05-56.jpg

Due to the recent discussions about Tusky merging their Gab ban, I'm reposting my series "Imagine if _all_ applications were developed the same way as Fedi apps" with slightly improved screenshots and a new one.

Also, I'd like to clarify my stance on this matter since people thought I'd support Gab or that I'd make inaccurate comparisons.

My motivation for posting these screenshots is that I think blocks like this don't belong in software that is completely detached from the stuff it displays.
Kinds of software that belong in this category are web browsers, email clients, music players, text editors, and also Fedi apps such as Tusky or Fedilab. They are merely tools that allow people to use certain contents or services, but they don't host them and therefore aren't responsible for them.
To me, this isn't a matter of free speech or some free software principles. As a user, I simply don't want developers to force their personal/political opinions onto me in that way. And here is why:

Imagine if more software implemented various kinds of blocks against things the developer doesn't want to support. I'm sure many of you now may think "Cool, so they block things for bad people. How is this a problem?"

The problem is that your view of what "bad people" are or how they should be handled by the software doesn't necessarily have to agree with the developers' views.

A good example for this is the file browser screenshot: Among other files, the message lists a Torrent for an Arch Linux image as blocked. Most likely, the imaginary developer thinks that Torrents are used too often to distribute illegal things, so making them harder to use is more beneficial than not doing it. Would you agree with this?

In the long run, this problem may become worse. What if the political climate in our society shifted and over time, some of the opinions you or people you like/follow/... hold were considered harmful by many software developers? What if you were confronted with messages like the ones in the screenshots all the time because of that?

Many people don't expect that measures taken against "bad people" could ever affect them negatively. After all, they are good people.
This is actually very similar to discussions about privacy invasions, where there are people who "have nothing to hide" and therefore don't care about such problems.

That's the situation I was trying to convey with these screenshots in the same way Black Mirror shows how current technological trends could lead to negative impacts on our society.
Bildschirmfoto vom 2019-06-19 1…
Bildschirmfoto vom 2019-06-01 2…
Bildschirmfoto vom 2019-06-02 1…
Bildschirmfoto vom 2019-06-02 1…
Bildschirmfoto vom 2019-06-17 2…
Bildschirmfoto vom 2019-06-19 1…