Interesting bit to watch. Gab head techies considering saying screw-it to Fediverse content.
That could improve the climate in the rest of the Fediverse, avoid nastiness by association like some instances suffer (not by supporting Gab, but simply by defending open network connection unless there's a reason for limiting or denying it)
a post by @isolategab
@freemo @arteteco @realcaseyrollins
QT: https://todon.nl/@isolategab/104254977308985846
@isolategab@todon.nl
π³π±
the only reason they are in the fediverse at all was to hijack the fediverse apps int he app store to circumvent censorship.
Now they got smart enough to realize they could keep the API the same so those apps still work for them and just ditch the federation part.
I dont think they ever really cared about decentralization in the first place.
@freemo @design_RG @arteteco @realcaseyrollins
But then every app maker of any following blocked them at the app level, so.... Β―\_(γ)_/Β―
@isolategab
Some of the app makers have since removed those blocks
@design_RG @arteteco @realcaseyrollins
> Some of the app makers have since removed those blocks
I am glad to know that -- as that should be at the user's discretion. Otherwise it's Censorship.
To be absolutely clear -- I personally BLOCK all content from gab and affiliates, a personal user decision which is open to ANY fediverse user (depending on their platform, slightly different ways to implement).
I am not a flag bearer for free speech, considering an inherent human right, but the limiting of user options in the clients is wrong headed, imo. You opinion is probably different, but no offense meant or taken.
We could just ignore these fringes, blocking individual users or instances as needed in case of conflict.
Says me, a free thinker, opinionated and #FediReporter via my blog.
#QotoJournal worthy theme and mention.
Why woudl you think my opinion is different on if censorship should be in the client level. I certainly agree.
I think it should be at the user discretion largely because a user wanting to view immoral content is not the same as the user being immoral.
I do not block GAB personally. The reason is two fold 1) as a moderator I need a complete view as to what my users need to deal with but, more imporantly 2) I dont want to hide racist or nazi content. I want to see it, know its there, and know what im up against in the battle to end it. Information is the most important weapon I have.
That said I have yet to come across a single gab accoutn worth following or sharing content from. I usually just see their racist crap, roll my eyes, maybe tell them to fuck off, and go about my day.
@freemo @design_RG @arteteco @realcaseyrollins - for folks who do not want to block Gab entirely (our preference) our advice is at least silencing them helps. Then they are still there for admins who want to allow their instance to support that but at least uses not following it are not shown it.
@isolategab
But to what end? It woukd still impede our LGBT community from their purpose (to watch for risks to their community). They woukd be unable to see responses in threads or watch the overall gab timeline for threats against their community if we silenced it.
On the other hand, what good would it do that woukd be worth that cost? None of our members are allowed to share hateful content so its not like a generalist instance where there is a fear gabs voice might be amplified.
@SuperDicq @arteteco @design_RG @freemo Federation is not a right. They are free to speak all they wish as app makers and instance owners have freedom of association.
@SuperDicq @arteteco @design_RG @freemo - I get that, but the opinion as I hear it is that it is a bad thing for instance owners to freely choose to exercise freedom of association.
@SuperDicq @arteteco @design_RG @freemo Users are fully free to join any instance on the Fedi directly, or to use an instance that has fedieration policies that they prefer. Nothing is infringed to them.
@isolategab
If i may, i dont think anyone in this thread claimed blocking gab is an infringement of rights, do as you wish for your instance. I think all that is being said is that the user in this cases wishes to decide that for themselves and puts instances that honor that wish as a high priority in how they select instances.
Well said, but just a reminder that many places do not disclose their blocking lists or policies.
And users will need an education and some experience to get to a point where this will matter to them, I think.
There's so many new ideas, concepts to learn, the Fediverse is vast, a lot more than Mastodon - and that I found fascinating. Still do.
Will collate a lot of the posts we made here in a #FediReporter article sometime in the near future -- this is an important issue, it's not just Gab and affiliates, but the internecine war and collateral damage done to decent people, who put an effort and money to be here, provide services, help others.
Thanks for your posts!
@freemo @SuperDicq @arteteco @design_RG Users absolutely have the right to choose instances that have Federation policies they want. For sure.
Was offering a different view than this: "I think that an admin is giving away the freedom of association of its users."
And noting that freedom of associaton rights of admins to block or silence Gab, or others doesn't curtail the rights of users to go pick another instance they prefer with different federation policies, or to go to said Gab instance directly and join.