maintainers are still unwilling to take down apps that are used to access Gab. Even for-profit companies like PayPal, GoDaddy, and Medium have terminated their relationship with Gab, so for a commity project, this behaviour is simply embarrassing.


Implementing blocklists in clients won't fix the nazi problem, and antagonizing volunteer developers/packagers won't improve the fediverse experience for anyone.

@zalandocalrissian Do you think cloudflare blocking 8chan also did nothing? Should we just make things as easy as possible for nazis and hope they go away on their own?

@felix cloudflare is a hosting/network provider, and they own the infrastructure. that's a different story. the equivalent would be firefox and chrome blocking access to 8chan and gab. they didn't do that, did they? i did not recommend "making it as easy as possible for nazis", i recommended not making life difficult for people who write our software. we have admins, and we have an instance block feature that allows more fine-grained, customized and faster control over the content.

@felix part of the reason the fediverse does not explode all the time is that people can have differing opinions on what content is block-worthy. most of us may agree that the "content" on gab is evil shit, but where does that common ground end? what about me defending fedilab? is that an ok opinion to have, or am i the guy who did nothing when my neighbors were deported? if it's the latter, should i be blocked for that? who decides? what about those who disagree?

@felix with decentralized moderation, as it's been implemented and used throughout the fediverse for a long time, we can avoid having that awful discussion. instances federate with instances that share roughly the same values, and the chances of meeting people you perceive as terrible assholes get lower. everyone is happier. nobody is disturbed by nazis. if they decide to run their own infrastructure, well, you can't prevent that (except by using legal measures where they're available).

@zalandocalrissian @felix
> (except by using legal measures where they're available).

are you against using those measurements? because I mean, where to draw the line - using your argument.

@paulfree14 @zalandocalrissian Also, this implies that we should accept anything that is allowed by the law. And this is an extreme example, but the holocaust was legal at the time.

@felix @paulfree14

most current law-making systems are more balanced and more legitimate than that of nazi germany.

fun fact: in case everything goes sideways and the nazis take over again, there's also a law specifically allowing us to resist:

@zalandocalrissian @felix @paulfree14 Try again. The USA has the Patriot Act, which can lock up anyone, foreign or domestic, without trial simply by accusing them of terrorism. Likewise, ICE has been given the same sort of extrajudicial powers for anyone accused of being an undocumented immigrant.

This is literally what Nazi Germany did with communists in the Reichstag Fire Decree, and what they did to the LGBTQ+ community elsewhere in their laws.

germany, nazis 

@felix @paulfree14 @zalandocalrissian there's a wide range of things which may not be punishable by law but are punishable by social action: if I tell you you're not welcome at my party that's not censorship or imprisonment, that's just free association.

Yelling at people who don't take social action against Nazis when they're in a position to do so seems like fair game. Developers feel uncomfortable? That's nice, people are dying.

@paulfree14 @felix

hm, interesting and difficult question. i'm from germany and my country has a law against the "usage of symbols of anti-constitutional organizations", which (among other things) means you're not allowed to wave a nazi flag and greet your friends with "heil hitler". this law exists because the first german republic (1918-1933) didn't have one and the nazis were elected. so i get the point why the law was made, and over the years it seems to have done more good than bad. [1/?]

@paulfree14 @felix
i think an important difference here is that laws usually tend to have more legitimacy than a decision made on the f-droid bugtracker or a comparable place (unless when your country is a dictatorship or something like that). I believe that the legal system of most countries is better equipped to draw this line between what is ok to say and what should be forbidden. Also, laws actually apply and have consequences - You can't just fork the country. [2/?]

@paulfree14 @felix

So to answer your question, no, i'm not against using laws against hate speech guess. Though i'd prefer laws that allow too much free speech over laws that forbid too much.

Is that a satisfactory answer?


liberal democracy, violence mentioned 

germany, nazi 

@zalandocalrissian @felix "people can have differring opinions on what is block-worthy"
If you think violence isn't block-worthy, then you're a damn fool.

But then again, that *is* what you think since you're literally suggesting people shouldn't block Gab, whose users constantly promote violence and antisemitism just like 8chan.

At no point is zalandocalrissian "literally suggesting people shouldn't block Gab"
@zalandocalrissian @felix

@govynnus @zalandocalrissian @felix They're literally arguing against banning apps designed to promote Gab. Go away, Nazi.

@zalandocalrissian @felix fdroid is infrastructure too. If they wanted to discourage gab they could. Whatabout whatabout whatabout.

@zalandocalrissian @felix also, firefox does block certain sites, for scams or malware. If fdroid just displayed a big warning, but allowed users to continue, would you accept that?

@felix They've had their own community approach them about this, by now it's not good for optics.


@felix Well, there's a difference between clients *for Gab* and Mastodon clients in general that don't explicitly block Gab.

@felix Looking at the issue it sounds like FreeTusky is touting that they don't block Gab *in specific*, which I could see being a cause for removal. But it looks like Fedilab isn't explicitly for Gab, it's just that they don't want to have client-level blocks in their software. Unless I'm mistaken?

(Not that I'm trying to support or advocate for Gab. Block them at the instance level! Just that we shouldn't ban apps for not hardcoding a block. That's just a little ridiculous.)

@IceWolf @felix No, there isn't.

You either oppose Nazis or you are aiding them. Turning a blind eye is the same as helping them do what they want.

@sandrockcstm @felix by that logic, we should block all web browsers, because you can use them to access Nazi websites?

(Like I said in my other post, I'm not trying to advocate for Nazism. I just think it makes far more sense to block them at the instance level rather than the client level.)

@IceWolf @sandrockcstm So because we cant remove fascism from the internet, we should just let them spread their hate everywhere? And whether you think so or not, you are actually helping the fascists with this argument.

@felix @sandrockcstm How is merely not blocking them from clients letting them spread their hate everywhere? If we block them at the instance level, then they still won't be able to get into our network. They'll just have their own, separate network -- just like they do on the internet.

@felix @sandrockcstm Is it because of the auto-connecting nature of federation? That when they make a new instance, we all get their stuff by default and have to block it?


People should be allowed to access Gab if they want to, as long as they do legal things.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Radical Town

A cool and chill place for cool and chill people.