For anyone who doesn't understand why the Tusky change is wrong:

It may not be against the letter of free/open source software*, but it is certainly in the spirit. FOSS does not discriminate against its users and remain FOSS, including the users you don't like. The freedom to use the software as you wish is unalienable, including for gab users.

* both definitions

That, and don't add rickrolls to your project for any reason.

@sir

if free software is supportive of nazis then I don't want free software

@ben Best give up on wanting free software. Freedom isn't something that can be cherrypicked, it is a natural right. People who spread hate have the freedom to do so but that also means I have the freedom to criticise them and mock them for it. I wouldn't be stopping them as censorship treads on freedom.

@sir

@thatbrickster @ben >natural rights
(thinking emoji)
weird how these natural rights always seem to exactly align with 17th and 18th c. enlightenment liberal philosophy

@qtd3n By 'natural' I mean they are negative rights. They cannot be granted, only restricted.

@ben

@thatbrickster @qtd3n @ben Free software is literally about non-restriction and preservation.

@CyReVolt So you agree with me.

@ben @qtd3n

@thatbrickster @qtd3n @ben #itsatrap
You have stated multiple points, one of which implies abuse, which I do not agree to. Nice try though.

@CyReVolt If you look through the thread you will see I opposed the idea of allowing one type of expression but not another. This was in reference to apps like Tusky blocking Gab users, violating their freedom to use the software. I don't like Gab but stopping someone from using it through 'free software' like Tusky, etc. does not make it freedom-respecting.

>nice try though
'I find one point you made disagreeable so my only retort is a smarmy remark instead of something constructive.'
If that's all you have to offer, you haven't contributed at all.

@ben @qtd3n

@thatbrickster @CyReVolt @ben @qtd3n The gab.com block doesn't block any particular "type of expression", it blocks using a particular server through the app.

The main promise of federation that I see is the removal of a central controlling instance. In that light, I applaud the gab.com blockade simply because it (hopefully) encourages people to roll their own. And yes, that means that blocking nazis becomes a game of Whack-a-mole (as @sir pointed out).

From there it's just another step to not putting any trust in providers of app binaries: build your own Tusky (under your own name), and you won't have issues with block lists like that because you control these block lists.

Meanwhile, the Tusky app developers are free (as in freedom!) to shape their app in the way that pleases them.

This attempt at exerting social control over Tusky app developers as if they owe anybody anything because free software ought to be "freedom respecting" is infringing on the app developers freedom to creative expression (no matter how annoying or shallow you may find it). While it's also free expression to criticize them for it, I think it's misguided to do so via some imaginary moral imperative.

(and now I'm on a level of meta-critique that's way beyond my comfort zone :-) )

@patrick @ben @CyReVolt @thatbrickster @sir @qtd3n You're violating your own standards by trying to exert "social control" over the people you say are trying to exert "social control".