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.
The fediverse is a lot like email, the prime example of a decentralized online service. Imagine if one day for whatever reason Gmail decided to stop federating with Hotmail, not allowing Gmail users to email Hotmail users anymore. Would you consider that is a good thing? I don't, so I think any good instance admin should not block other instances.
Thats a very well said and good point. Servers would have the **right** to defederate but in doing so ultimately do far more harm to the network than good. I generally agree to that.
But with that said as a counter argument you are aware gmail (and most email services) do actively "defederate" from specific servers. So thats already how email works, its just that it is very rarely due to the opinions held by any users on such a server.
Right. Though to be fair thats likely because they cant legally read your emails anyway. If emails were public and shared as such I would imagine they would.
Not saying its right, I agree with you, its counter productive to a well intentioned network (as well as morally counter productive). But just saying they probably would.
Well they can scan my emails by automated systems.. but does their ToS permit a human to read my emails or otherwise disseminate their content?
I dont know but I would hope not.
@SuperDicq @arteteco @design_RG @freemo Federation is not akin to email lists. Much more like Usenet, where different admins had different polcies. Including spam, but also for thinks like objectionable alt groups.
