Follow

F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

.@fdroidorg 's repo hosts many apps to access social networks centred around hate speech, and it's the shittest flagship I've ever seen. How can they expect us to recommend jumping ship from Google Play onto their service with that stain on them?
People will say "well run your own repo then", but that's missing the point entirely. These hate speech centred communities should be doing so instead. That's who that feature is for, not *us*, the userbase worth growing.

F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@jookia @fdroidorg Spinster (minimally adapted Tusky soley for the TERF network Spinster), Free Tusky (exists to remove the built-in Gab block), and imageboard apps: Chanu, clover, Overchan (let's face it, most imageboards are far-right boiling pots)

F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@Shrigglepuss @fdroidorg Maybe they could be hidden by default?

F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@jookia @Shrigglepuss @fdroidorg Screw that. They can be put in third party repos. Period. There's no need to have them in the main repo at all.

F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@KitsuneAlicia @Shrigglepuss @fdroidorg

It provides open source software people build and want to use, isn't that good enough of a reason to have it in the main repo?

F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@jookia @KitsuneAlicia @fdroidorg No, not at all. It's also helping to increase exposure for platforms designed primarily for hate speech, and people will always be more important than software.
Also, Tusky is great and available, what good reason could there be to also host forks with tiny little amendments soley to facilitate access to the evil corners of the internet? If that's not an argument for restricting them to third party repos I don't know what is

F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@Shrigglepuss @KitsuneAlicia @fdroidorg I think I'm okay with the idea in theory, but my problem here comes with how practical it would be to create criteria that's fair towards right-wing communities.

F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@jookia @KitsuneAlicia @fdroidorg F-Droid is fair to right-wing communities in that they can literally make their own repo. Why would that have to be anywhere near the main F-Droid repo though?

F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@Shrigglepuss @KitsuneAlicia @fdroidorg The actual fairness I'm arguing for here is over criteria for inclusion in the main repo, not whether F-Droid allows me to use third-party repos.

F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@jookia @Shrigglepuss @fdroidorg That's easy, and I've gone over this in my attempts to get F-Droid to enforce their rules for FreeTusky and Librem Social.

Look up the Paradox of Tolerance. It's everything you need to know. The ones branded or otherwise purposed for instances that start intolerance towards a given person or group of people are the ones that get banned.

No need to be "fair" to the unfair.

F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@jookia right wing communities exist for the purpose of advancing policies and ideas which serve no purpose except to harm innocent people and can quite frankly get fucked

F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

being "unfair" to them is the only ethical position

F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@jookia @Shrigglepuss I don't understand the question. Librem Social, FreeTusky, Spinster, and Gab are all forks of Tusky and the only changes are

a) rebranding (changing the name & icon)
and b) removing Tusky's Gab block

There's not even a programming reason to keep these hate speech-branded apps on there, and the hate speech alone should be enough to ban them under F-Droid's own ToS, but they're cowards and won't enforce it.

F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@KitsuneAlicia @Shrigglepuss Maybe a solution would be to have F-Droid ship a patched version of Tusky without the limit and remove the other apps. This would let people have the ability to connect to whatever networks they want without endorsing hate speech.

F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@jookia @KitsuneAlicia That's exactly what Free Tusky is, but by hosting it alongside Tusky and only having the Gab block removed is that not an indirect endorsement for Gab seeing as that's literally the only difference?

F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@Shrigglepuss @KitsuneAlicia No, I see it as a protest against Tusky's blocking. The app description doesn't even mention Gab- in fact I didn't know it was specifically about Gab. Having software that intentionally blocks you from connecting to certain networks seems like an anti-feature to me personally, so I would use Free Tusky instead.

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@jookia @KitsuneAlicia @Shrigglepuss Blocking instances should always be up to other instances and end users. Client developers, especially open source, should not arbitrarily limit user participation. This is not morality, but an abusive DRM scheme. The reason users are using that shitty fork created by racists is because Tusky added DRM in the first place. If the DRM wasn't in place, legitimate users would have no reason to use the fork.

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@naia @jookia @KitsuneAlicia Efforts to reduce a piece of software's ability to connect to a social network that's played a part in radicalising people to acts of actual murder is not an anti-feature.
It's also not "DRM" nor "abusive", Free Tusky can literally live elsewhere other than on a flagship repo, it makes that repo incredibly hard to endorse as a sensible alternative to Google Play

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@Shrigglepuss @jookia @KitsuneAlicia

It is just as much DRM as if Apple decided that Safari on iOS devices was going to be blocked from accessing certain sites for their user's protection. These decisions should not be made by a software developer, or even governments for that matter.

As somebody with experience regarding various forms of extremism, as well as both domestic and foreign terrorism, I can say:

1. There is still a large market of people to radicalize, and Tusker's efforts do little to nothing to prevent it.

2. Tusker's development team are not trained on combating extremism, and should not be making these decisions arbitrarily on behalf of their users.

You'll notice Wolf Howl blocks abusive instances that we become aware of. I in no way support abusive behavior, I just do not think client-side censorship imposed on users is the answer. You won't convince me otherwise.

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@naia @jookia @Shrigglepuss So, you believe that browsers that block malware are bad? Because that's the analogy you're making here with Safari.

Digitized hate speech = malware. It's harmful. To say that clients shouldn't block malware is ludicrous because we all know how little research the average user actually does on this kind of stuff.

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@KitsuneAlicia @jookia @Shrigglepuss Users can disable malware blocks, or override them if their browser makes a mistake (which happens).

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@naia @jookia @Shrigglepuss And third party repos allow these forks to continue being distributed. Why are you so against banning hate speech-branded apps?

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@KitsuneAlicia @naia @Shrigglepuss I know this isn't directed towards me, but I'd be okay banning hate speech-branded apps given a clear apolitical criteria

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@jookia @naia @Shrigglepuss ...How do you suppose you make political speech apolitical?

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@KitsuneAlicia @naia @Shrigglepuss That's a good point, but I've never considered hate speech political. Any ideas on how to create a definition of hate speech that's clear and agreeable by most non-extremists?

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@jookia @naia @Shrigglepuss People already have. It's called the Paradox of Tolerance, which I mentioned elsewhere already.

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@KitsuneAlicia @naia @Shrigglepuss But people have different ideas about what's tolerable and what's harmful. I'd just like to see F-Droid be specific about its criteria rather than having a ambiguous term like 'hate speech' that could be twisted to argue for or against removal.

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@KitsuneAlicia @jookia @Shrigglepuss Did I ever say I was against removing the Gab branded app from F-Droid - I don't believe I did. I am against Tusky's censorship protocol in the first place, which is why those apps even exist. I would love to see (and would happily help promote) an uncensored Tusky alternative NOT created by racists. :)

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@naia @jookia @Shrigglepuss And here's deja vu. I had this exact conversation with someone back when F-Droid hadn't yet denied the request.

Y'all keep sidestepping the topic at hand, so any reasonable person would suspect that. If you wanna talk about how Tusky can improve, fine. But that's a topic for a different thread. This one is about F-Droid not banning those apps.

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@KitsuneAlicia @naia @Shrigglepuss I think there's two topics at hand: Should F-Droid ban the apps? Sure, and having a good criteria would help. Should those apps exist in the first place? No, maybe we should examine why they do

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@jookia @naia @Shrigglepuss The first question regarding criteria has been answered so many times.

The second, I already agreed that Tusky would be better off changing the rickroll to something like a flat out denial with the explanation that it's used by violent extremists.

What more is there to discuss?

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@KitsuneAlicia @naia @Shrigglepuss I don't think anyone suggested a flat out denial, but an option. So that might not be agreement. Other than that, probably nothing.

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@jookia @naia
Just gonna do one reply to save on things, but to both of you: Why?

@Shrigglepuss

Show more
Show more

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@jookia @KitsuneAlicia @naia @Shrigglepuss this is an incredibly disappointing thread to read coming from you, tbh. You were very vocal when you thought we at GNOME were trying to make GNOME less accessible (which is good and justified - hold tech people accountable for accessibility!), but you’re not willing to hold techbros accountable for not enabling fascism?

De-platforming works. Doing nothing does not. De-platforming, if F-Droid were to actually participate in it, would make it much harder for these nazi forks to distribute their apps, as they’d need their own money and infrastructure, and wouldn’t have the benefit of being available from every single install of F-Droid. Yes, the forks might not exist if the block was an option, but that would be meaningless when you consider the goal of the block - not enabling fascism.

Show more
Show more
Show more
Show more

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@KitsuneAlicia @jookia @Shrigglepuss Tusky should not deny users from connecting to sites that communicate with it period. It is anti-user behavior.

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@KitsuneAlicia @naia @Shrigglepuss Clients should have the option to not block it if they want malware.

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@KitsuneAlicia @naia @jookia @Shrigglepuss > Digitized hate speech = malware. It's harmful.

no. malware is damaging/altering my computer in a way I don't want. hateful content is just annoying and can be easily ignored. thanks for encouraging the developers to waste their time on this nonsense (which is their decision to make), instead of facing actual issues like tusky's battery consumption.

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@lucy @KitsuneAlicia @jookia @naia "hateful content is just annoying and can be easily ignored." for you maybe, for others it's a very tangible detriment to peoples mental and sometimes even physical wellbeing. You're very lucky to be able speak from a place that has that opinion

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@Shrigglepuss @naia @KitsuneAlicia I see it as an anti-feature when it specifically doesn't let you connect to a website you want to just because the author has decided this.

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@naia @jookia @Shrigglepuss Not true. Complicity is still a crime, and fighting bigots on every level is the only way we're gonna win.

It's not a violation of their rights to deny them a platform, whether that platform is on the instance level or the app store or server hosting levels. They can host their own if they really insist on discriminating against others.

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@KitsuneAlicia @jookia @Shrigglepuss You are not complicit in terrorism because you don't actively maintain a blacklist. If Tusky were to promote these instances, that would be a problem.

I can't get with your mindset on this, so we can agree to disagree.

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@naia @jookia @KitsuneAlicia Does it not make you even a little bit uncomfortable to know that (if you are using F-Droid) that they're also gladly facilitating and increasing exposure for these sorts of social networks though? Why do they have to live on their main repo? Is that not "abusive" to people that very reasonably don't want to be around that sort of apathy towards hate speech, nor Google Play?

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@Shrigglepuss @naia @KitsuneAlicia With the *chan stuff, sure it makes me uncomfortable. But with the Tusky stuff, the reason there's even right-wing hate speech Tusky apps is because the Tusky app artificially created a need for that by the right-wing.

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@jookia @naia @KitsuneAlicia And the reason so many people know about those apps is because they're hosted on the biggest available and default F-Droid repo, which literally doesn't have to be the case

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@Shrigglepuss @jookia @KitsuneAlicia No. Wrong. The reason is because they know Tusky arbitrarily blocks instances and they seek an alternative. The censorship is what drove people to use apps created by racists.

Happy with the result?

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@Shrigglepuss @naia @KitsuneAlicia Yeah but they don't have to exist at all if Tusky didn't rick roll people instead of letting them connect to them. Tusky helped cause their creation.

re: F-Droid / hatespeech as per 

@jookia
If you don't like the apps don't install it. Or you might as well go uninstall f droid and use google play. Reason they exist is because tusky hard blocked gab. And I'll admit I don't like gab but it's nice to talk to people that don't hold the same ideas as mine like I know few admins don't totally see eyes with me.
@Shrigglepuss @KitsuneAlicia
Sign in to participate in the conversation
this godforsaken website

godforsaken.website is a uk-based mastodon instance boasting literally thousands of posts about bumholes and UNESCO world heritage sites