@JPEG thankfully, you stand for your principles and I appreciate that very much. 馃檹鉁婐煈

@JPEG At least in 1-2 updates they are unable to maintain the code and they are living with an outdated version.^^


@JPEG can't wait to find out what Apple does to the "Mast for iOS but Nazis can use it" app


@ben @JPEG They鈥榣l do the same as with the InfoWars app.


@ben Hopefully instant rejection.

@JPEG: What a guilt trip right there, but the Mastodon community will surely thank you and support your decision. I might need to do the same for Hyperspace, granted that I find a way and create the UI for blocked instances.

@alicerunsonfedora Id definitely suggest doing the same for your own. It鈥檚 hard to stay in check, but little steps.

@JPEG it will be easier to them banned from the App Store as Gab is already banned.

@JPEG Hope you don鈥檛 reconsider Mast being open source because of them! If they want to fork, let them. We鈥檒l see which fork is better 馃槈.

BTW, did I misunderstand or is it still possible to use Gab, just not possible to sign up? In which case I would say they鈥檙e not blocked and merely discouraged and are making a fool of themselves for nothing. You can always sign up on Web!

I鈥檓 personally not a fan of filtering in software instead of at the backend, but it鈥檚 your app 馃檪.

@js I鈥檒l be keeping it open source :) not letting a few bad actors impact anything. And Mast blocks them from signing up at all so they can鈥檛 use the app if they can鈥檛 get in when entering an instance.

@JPEG Ah. That I鈥檓 not a fan of. Not because I like Gab, but it makes me wonder if e.g. my instance ever gets blocked because you and @angristan get into an argument or whatever. Software should let me do what I want to do. It鈥檚 ok to have defaults that I need to change, it鈥檚 ok to block sign up as that鈥檚 kind of an endorsement, but I鈥檓 worried about software that enforces opinions and gets in my way :/. Gab is an easy one, but what鈥檚 next?

@js @angristan That鈥檚 entirely understandable and a very valid point. I think the distinction here is between what鈥檚 widely regarded as hate speech and 鈥榥azis鈥 etc. That鈥檚 wholeheartedly considered 鈥榖ad鈥. I would never stop anyone using the platform for personal preferences or reasons otherwise that don鈥檛 cause any harm on others.

@JPEG That's good to hear! 馃檪

But there's a few other problems as well, even with the Gab ban. I've learned early (~ 2003 or so) that using software to fix social problems doesn't work and only makes everything worse.

Then there's that open source licenses explicitly don't limit how it can be used. I'd like to not allow any military to use my software - but then it would not be open source anymore, so I do not have such a clause. Things would quickly get incompatible and the software [1/n]

@JPEG ecosystem would collapse, as you quickly have a lot of incompatible licenses. *Everybody* is now trying to limit who can use their software. Now imagine someone like ESR would start enforcing his political opinions on the software he maintains. I'm sure he has plenty of opinions you personally disagree with, and if he limits the software to people who agree with him, you would no longer be able to use it. Suddenly, you would have a huge problem: No fetchmail. No ncurses. So even [2/n]

@JPEG though you disagree with his political opinions, you might still want to use the software. Now imagine the mess we'd be in if everybody would enforce their political opinion in their software.

And then there's also the point that you might want to use Gab. Not because you are a Nazi. Because you are a target and want to know what they are up to. You might want to use Mast to read up on what they are targeting right now, so that you can adjust and stay out of it.

Introducing [3/4]

@JPEG politics in software has been tried before, and it never worked well. Even such mundane things as a "Do no evil" clause resulted in a big problem, even though they seem completely harmless and well intentioned.

Imagine that next Mozilla prevents you from visiting some sites they disagree with. "You want to use Google? They track you. We disagree with that."

In any case, feel free to disagree 馃檪. Just my opinion and experience and I force it on nobody 馃槈. And also not a fan of Gab.


@js I respect and agree with all the points that you've mentioned. It's definitely a hard balance to find, where you respect users' wishes as well as what's 'right'. Policing the state of a network tends to have a negative effect, but without it, it tends to fester anyway so kind of need a balance either way. Take Twitter for example, Jack's hated by many for how he's allowing Nazis on his platform, but if were to start banning entire groups of people, it would set a precedent that could lead...

@js to it becoming a very closed community. It's not something that's as clear as black and white, and I'd love to satisfy both ends of this. But also, having already taken a step, I feel like I can't take any steps back now at all. Gab is bad, that we agree on, but what else is bad, and how much else will have to be decided? Questions I don't really want to partake in...

@js because at the end of the day I just wanted to make a cool app that people can use. Realistically, the platform decisions should fall on platform creators, not front-end vendors. I didn't even know what gab was until some time ago, and even then it's not something I have come across myself. It's a weird scenario but I agree with all you've said. :)

@JPEG Interesting counter argument to consider: We made a lot of nazis super rich by banning them from all payment methods and pushing them to Bitcoin 馃槦

@js @JPEG that's not a problem with open source licenses in general. it's an artificial problem with open source licenses written by the FSF and other groups who claim they don't have a political agenda, but are effectively coming down on the side of hate speech and the military by default.

i'm starting to think Crockford had the right idea鈥

@VyrCossont @JPEG That's not true. It's a problem with with any license to which you add usage restrictions. The FSF just disallowed any restrictions.

As soon as you have different licenses with incompatible terms, you have a problem. Example: If someone uses the BSD license and adds "Can't be used by Germans" (using that as an example as I am German), and someone else adds a "Can only be used by Germans", then those two can never be combined.

As you can see, not an FSF problem.

@js @JPEG so follow the licenses and don't combine them, i don't see the problem here

if you have to find or write a library that does allow use by Germans but doesn't allow use by the military, it serves your goal of not allowing use of your software by the military

it might also be some extra work but what social good isn't?

@VyrCossont @JPEG Well what if you have two libraries that you want to use that have an incompatible license?
What about the example I gave of ESR then forbidding you to use his software?

@js then you don't use one of them and you find or write a replacement with a compatible license. won't be the first time someone reimplemented software due to licensing, won't be the last.

how much do you want your software to not be used by the military?

also ESR is a documented homophobe, sexist, and gun nut, a real piece of shit who i find objectionable both personally and politically. so i already don't use his software. no problems there. 馃槆

@VyrCossont Exactly - we already have license problems because there's so many. Now if everybody adds their own clause on usage restrictions, there's basically almost no compatibility left anymore.

And yes, you do use ESR's software. You have it on your system. You're using it daily. I'm sure. I mean, do you use e-mail? Do you use anything with ncurses? There you go. I intentionally picked ESR *because* he is objectionable and yet everybody uses his software.

@js ESR inventing email is news to me dude

jumping onto one long-obsolete mail program that someone else wrote hardly makes him irreplaceable email infrastructure

and the only TUI app i use even weekly is tmux 馃槤

but i'm not going to do a point by point refutation of your scenario鈥
@js i'm sure you can find software on *either* of our systems written or contributed to by, say, neo-Nazis

there are a lot of them around these days, although major projects adopting codes of conduct seems to piss them off鈥
@js the real question is how much you value your own preference for your software not to be used, directly or indirectly, to kill people, vs. your preference against license fragmentation

and the answer is that, based on our conversation, you seem to care more about license fragmentation than people fragmentation

interesting choice
@js but your point about enforcing social goals thru technical measures is well taken. it won't always work.

we also need to continue to make it *socially* unacceptable to be a neo-Nazi or other element of Gab's target market, and that includes irritation-level barriers like @JPEG including Gab on Mast blocklists, and i'm happy to see more and more of that happen.

@VyrCossont @JPEG Yup. That has fortunately happened in Germany 馃榾. Most of the shit they say is outright illegal here and jailable. Unfortunately, there's parties like AfD who try to make it normal again 馃槦.

@VyrCossont I'm thinking putting a line that says "Any military is not allowed to use this software" is only causing fragmentation, because a military won't care anyway about such a clause. So you get fragmentation and the software is still used by the military. I definitely don't want my software to be used to kill people, but there's only so much I can do.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!