Post 9jYaSSzI9Tr7RGDfOK by cj@mastodon.technology
(DIR) More posts by cj@mastodon.technology
(DIR) Post #9jVGxCPpEeGYSe7yS0 by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-04T11:41:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
- Developers ceasing to provide a plausible reason to block the instance (claiming Gab is a nazi instance because they embrace freedom of speech);- Mastodon already has CW and tools for silencing users, although this isn't effective for Gab, but for everything else is;- Banning other instances is out of the question even though the majority of these instances users defend human rights violation and violence against humans
(DIR) Post #9jVGxCcwRsl37KGRtY by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-04T11:45:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I've raised the point that free software is built on the four freedoms as defined by GNU, including the use of the software as you like. Blocking instances restricts the use of the app and thus it ceases to be qualified as free software.
(DIR) Post #9jVGxCvjK1mq3b3SBE by cj@mastodon.technology
2019-06-04T11:50:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xinayder Gab can fork it and remove such a check and thus still continue to use it as they wish, so it still qualifies under the pillars of Free Software.The difference is who gets to publish it to the $App_Stores and therefore which one gets banned by the $App_Store_Company.
(DIR) Post #9jVGxD5ej7j6YNhNeS by cj@mastodon.technology
2019-06-04T11:52:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xinayder The argument about it "no longer being usable" because of this change is a weak one: you could say that about any code change you disagree with. Want rich text in Mastodon but Gargron said no? "Oh no it's no longer ethically Free Software"?. No. The license still lets you fork (ex #Florence) and use the software as you see fit.
(DIR) Post #9jVGxDJ7v2VBEA08eG by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-04T12:18:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cj I disagree. Tusky was made to login and use fediverse instances. Restricting access to a specific instance restricts the freedom of use of the app.As you said, you can still fork (never questioned), but the original app violates the freedom of use principle.
(DIR) Post #9jVGxDQvS2jxcLeMnw by cj@mastodon.technology
2019-06-04T12:41:25Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@xinayder > Restricting access to a specific instance restricts the freedom of use of the app.You misunderstand RMS and Free Software. It's about the rights of the user to own and modify source code. It's not about the political garbage in the source code. As long as the user can freely modify it to be "status quo" (a political position itself) or their flavor of political garbage it is still Free Software.
(DIR) Post #9jVt4EEqeVyWOrlvkW by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-04T19:22:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@dgold Morally just is to ban all instances that promote "ideas" that violate human rights and promote violence, not a single one.
(DIR) Post #9jVtTgoXXu94GWbiSm by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-04T19:54:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@byllgrim @dgold I guess something that's fair according to moral law.
(DIR) Post #9jVu7jbcaOAOVUexYO by maloki@elekk.xyz
2019-06-04T14:56:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xinayder The important thing isn't what you want to do. Free software isn't about Freedom of speech it's a different kind of Free. As one of the people making the decision, it's very simple: Freedom of speech protects you for repercussions from the government, not private entities. Tusky is one of those entities, and we are free to show you the door, and we have. @cj
(DIR) Post #9jVu7jp5mIwTBGxiYC by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2019-06-04T15:13:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@maloki > Freedom of speech protects you for repercussions from the governmentThis is a highly US-centric view, based on the wording of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights sees things very differently:https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html(1/2)@xinayder @cj
(DIR) Post #9jVu7k4gqJQ1xeGArY by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2019-06-04T15:17:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Article 19:"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."Not specific to government. Besides, if you have the power to interfere with other people's access to information, that's a power of government and using it is governing.@maloki @xinayder @cj
(DIR) Post #9jVu7kGO8omCXvjW64 by maloki@elekk.xyz
2019-06-04T15:50:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey Sure let's use a "non-us centric view". Freedom of speech protects against all speech with exception of hate-speech, where I'm from.Which, from where we're standing right now, Gab falls under (hate-speech). Thank you for helping me clear that out. @xinayder @cj
(DIR) Post #9jVu7kQJXuiT2iNRZI by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2019-06-04T16:05:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@maloki in China, "hate speech" is criticizing Chairman Mao, Xi Jinping, or the CCP, or defending the human rights of Tibetans, Muslims in Xinjian, or gay people. If "hate speech" laws are not illegal under international law, they ought to be. However benevolent their motivations, they are violations of inalienable human rights, and ripe for abuse by less benevolent governments. @xinayder @cj
(DIR) Post #9jVu7kberjn3btgVFY by cj@mastodon.technology
2019-06-04T16:11:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey No, it's not. "Hate speech" is really easy to define: advocating for the removal of civil liberties for people based on class, gender, etc.I'll give you credit: trying to redefine "criticizing the government" or "advocating for the advancement of civil liberties towards equality" as "hate speech" is a clever word-play trick.@maloki @xinayder
(DIR) Post #9jVu7koQ6HzyFTeh8q by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-04T19:30:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cj @strypey @maloki one could argue that forbidding access to Gab on Tusky suits this definition. And no, I'm not talking about neo-nazis and other groups that have hate speech in common, but about users that aren't part of these groups and won't be able to use their instance on Tusky.
(DIR) Post #9jVu7kxzWheejA8L3o by cj@mastodon.technology
2019-06-04T19:36:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xinayder "One could argue"? Or are you going to actually step up to argue that Tusky dev expressing his speech to prevent "not-nazis hanging out with nazis" (but not preventing them from going an extra mile to do hijack Tusky dev's work to do so) is equivalent to the hate speech of "gas all the jews" and "America the White Ethno State" and "kill the gays"?@strypey @maloki
(DIR) Post #9jVu7lAOmZZzLdwFOq by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-04T19:54:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cj @strypey @maloki I just wanted to mention that your definition was vague and could be interpreted the way I put it. I won't step up to argue like hate groups do because I don't support hate speech and never will.
(DIR) Post #9jVu7lIYIG6Lkvkl6m by cj@mastodon.technology
2019-06-04T19:57:57Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@xinayderI'm very glad you pointed out that my sense of ethics is vague and not black and white. It's a huge complement. To have black-and-white ethics would be a travesty, either far-left or far-right totalitarianism.I am also glad you dont hold the interpretation you listed. It would be unfortunate, since such a stance would be incredibly apologetic for hatred. However devils-advocate discussions only really work among friends@strypey @maloki
(DIR) Post #9jWubi9Kl7S3ptgMHA by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-04T20:02:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cj @strypey @maloki still, I don't agree with the direction the PR is heading (likely to be approved) until someone explains why Mastodon and Fediverse tools for silencing and blocking users and instances are pretty good for some cases of hate speech, but not on this one, for example. Hate speech is hate speech, no matter what side of the political compass you're on.
(DIR) Post #9jWubiJy7ZxUMseqqu by cj@mastodon.technology
2019-06-04T20:07:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xinayder The tools are:- Users can mute users- Users can block users- Admins can mute users- Admins can mute instances (I think?)- Admins can block users- Admins can block instances- Dev can add domain block to client appThanks to the vagueness of the English language, I'm not sure where you draw the line above. For me, all are fine, but where do you put these tools into buckets of "ethically OK" and "not ethically OK"?@strypey @maloki
(DIR) Post #9jWubiVJRP24w3xuXA by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-04T21:37:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cj I don't think leaving the decision of blocking access to an instance for the client is a good idea, and I wrote it in the issue discussion. The question is, why bother blocking access to an instance in the app if you already have tools in place to prevent whoever you want to federate with you?
(DIR) Post #9jWubiiQedWZak6Nyi by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-04T21:40:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cj Take a look at examples. They run Linux, Android, macOS, Firefox, Chrome, Windows. And yet you know how you prevent them from reaching their content? Via an ISP block. Website termination from the service provider. You have lots of different ways to prevent communication from hate groups, which are much more effective than blocking it via software. So, why bother then?
(DIR) Post #9jWubj43MEp0foDegS by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-04T21:49:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cj Criminals can use Tor to circumvent these blocks. Do the authors of the Tor project care? Absolutely. But they also know that restricting access from specific groups contradicts their goals.I'm pretty sure they don't like to be associated with crime and wrongdoings, but that's a risk they took when they built an open tool to ensure civil rights and liberties.
(DIR) Post #9jWubjBqtF3n3zrsq8 by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-04T21:53:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cj There's no such thing as "exclusive freedom of speech". You either defend it, or you defend censorship.Now, what the society chooses to do with a speech they disagree with, it's up to the society. Morals and ethics are socially constructed and subject to change. If someone breaks one of these constructs, it's up to the society to punish and reeducate the offender.
(DIR) Post #9jWubjOy6TYHig0MHg by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-04T21:58:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cj the Fediverse is a society. Each instance could be seen as a group, and the groups that do something that the rest doesn't like, it's up to the other groups to prevent or restrict communication to the offending group.Blocking access to an instance in the app will take that power away from the Fediverse, leaving it on the hands of application developers, thus rendering the tools previously mentioned obsolete.
(DIR) Post #9jWubjbjL1lCMFyYAy by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-04T22:01:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cj Think of it like the email protocol. Imagine the chaos it would be if server tools for blocking and flagging spam addresses and messages were left to the client. Yes, the tools can exist on both sides, but you'd be reinventing the wheel and it would be less effective than having a server tool that flagged messages as spam.
(DIR) Post #9jWubjrKP2El8dH0UK by cj@mastodon.technology
2019-06-05T06:51:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xinayder Like Tor, ActivityPub is neutral. Servers are neutral. No one is getting de-platformed. Unlike Tor, the early adopters (dev and users) of the Fediverse were people running away from hate speech groups who thrive in the "status quo" tooling of corporations, so it is well established as a majority opinion here. The app in question has nothing to do with these tech protocols, it doesn't even implement ActivityPub C2S.
(DIR) Post #9jWubk3jeuA5l74upM by cj@mastodon.technology
2019-06-05T06:55:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xinayder "You either defend speech or defend censorship" is a false dichotomy, zero sum mentality. There's tons of cases where one person's freedom of speech infringes on another, and advocating for censorship actually increases both parties' speech. For example, two people trying to graffiti the same public place (whoever wins always gets defaced, no one wins) versus having an agreement of who gets what days (alternating messages)
(DIR) Post #9jWubkDJ5JomEnYYkK by cj@mastodon.technology
2019-06-05T06:58:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xinayder You are also obscuring the real issue here. A client is refusing logins/registrations for one instance. That's it. This isn't at all the same as email federation, it isn't the same as ActivityPub federation, it isn't the same as a client side spam list for blocking incoming messages. Fediverse messages are still being delivered. Fediverse accounts on the blacklisted instance still continue to function. It is all still there.
(DIR) Post #9jWubkPiLBk6rHMT5M by cj@mastodon.technology
2019-06-05T07:01:27Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@xinayder Therefore blocking an instance in an app does *not* take away an iota of power away from the Fediverse. At all. It is a dev exercising their speech to encourage people who would otherwise be hateful to either: have *them* exercise *their* liberty to fork and install an app to spew hate; or register on a non-hate instance and have a chance at being de-radicalized.And I think everything there is morally good.
(DIR) Post #9jWyBLSatWWHknNGWe by deFrisselle@liberdon.com
2019-06-05T08:22:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cj @xinayder It limits my choice to choose what content shows in my timelines Gab today and who knows what instance tomorrow I didn't install #Tusky for a curated feed so it's now gone from my devices
(DIR) Post #9jWyomkXMoeHgTZcRc by cj@mastodon.technology
2019-06-05T08:29:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@deFrisselleDid you read anything I said or are you purposefully being obtuse?Tusky. Is. Not. Censoring. Timelines. It is preventing logins and registrations to one *theoretical* instance that doesn't exist yet.At least give me the respect of reading what I say.@xinayder
(DIR) Post #9jYa07U0VnqudR4NCC by deFrisselle@liberdon.com
2019-06-06T03:00:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cj @xinayder Guess it's time for someone to #Fork Tusky
(DIR) Post #9jYaSRxTyioYFMMhvs by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-05T09:54:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cj @deFrisselle Yes you are. By restricting access to an instance, you block people from using it. Making them seek other apps to use their instance.You're trying to make it difficult for them to federate and you don't want them using your app. Totally understandable.But to call this "fair" and "morally correct" is wrong. Several other hate speech instances are around and you're not blocking them.
(DIR) Post #9jYaSS3razv0Z9LnsW by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-05T09:56:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cj @deFrisselle and yes, you're blocking federation. get every other app to do the same thing as Tusky and your objective is achieved. You may think this is harmless, but sets a pattern that apps will want to follow and it'll achieve the goal the PR was designed for.
(DIR) Post #9jYaSSFusBYlAWzQfI by cj@mastodon.technology
2019-06-05T10:30:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xinayderTalking about where to draw the line for other hate speech instances means you concede the point that blocking the app is ethically sound, and it's now a matter of defining principles for inclusion. I'm not sure you are actually ok with that.Also your "what if all apps do this" is already an impossibility, because of Free Software. I'm not going to repeat the rationale behind this point.@deFrisselle
(DIR) Post #9jYaSSPUIbDReDT4aG by cj@mastodon.technology
2019-06-05T10:33:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xinayderAnd no, Tusky blocking registrations and logins doesn't prevent *the server* from accepting registrations, logins, federating with other instances, viewing content sent by its members, etc.So they are not being censored from the Fediverse. Their members just have to exercise their Free Software liberties more than others. That's a small price to pay for people who want to spread hate speech.@deFrisselle
(DIR) Post #9jYaSSa7f3isBCRZA0 by cj@mastodon.technology
2019-06-05T10:39:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xinayderAnd as for "poor bystanders" that want to hang out with hate speech but not spread it themselves, they instead encounter dev's free speech of "you get to exercise your Free Software liberties to login like regular hate speech-ers"And if that causes them to realize "hey maybe hanging out here is bad for my moral character cause now I have to act like a hate speecher" then it's a deradicalization win@deFrisselle
(DIR) Post #9jYaSSqQgQlazm4aZs by cj@mastodon.technology
2019-06-05T10:44:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xinayderThis results in everyone's liberties being protected, devs, admins and users still able to evangelize their clashing ethics, and content still allowed to be spread everywhere, regardless of political position.Trying to reframe a devs Free Software Free Speech as some form of censorship is, imo, willfully misunderstanding of Free Software and/or principles of Free Speech, and infringes a devs liberty@deFrisselle
(DIR) Post #9jYaSSzI9Tr7RGDfOK by cj@mastodon.technology
2019-06-05T10:55:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xinayderThere are different ethics that apply to "speech in the commons" such as a public square. But the Four Free Software principles allow that to be bypassed regardless of the political content of said Free Software.If this was about a proprietary app doing the same thing, I would likely be on your side since users four software freedom liberties are not being respected.@deFrisselle
(DIR) Post #9jYaSTAzRzDI1Xh0cq by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-05T11:00:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cj @deFrisselle It already started with mastodon.social blocking Librem for it having little moderation. What's next? Blocking people that defend different opinions about a subject, controlling what information should be available on the fediverse and censoring those that disagree with the "fediverse truth"?
(DIR) Post #9jYaSTMKloHsaj04J6 by deFrisselle@liberdon.com
2019-06-06T03:05:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xinayder @cj Yup, the instance I'm on is blocked by more than just some instances but third party services like gatewaysFound the Twitter gateway I was using block my home instance due to being a #FreeSpeechZone
(DIR) Post #9jYawz05h2gjPd91JQ by cj@mastodon.technology
2019-06-05T11:05:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xinayderOnce again you are obscuring the issue between "app blocks logins to instance" versus "ActivityPub instance blocks federated content". They still are not the same. We are only discussing the former.I want to point out this is not the first time you have attempted this line of argument. I still welcome rebuttals to my core arguments.@deFrisselle
(DIR) Post #9jYawzBmzY2tzucMXw by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-05T11:10:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cj @deFrisselle I stated it and you don't want to accept it.User uses an app to login to an instance. User uses the app to communicate through the fediverse.Blocking an instance won't let the user login to an instance, meaning they won't be able to communicate.We both believe instances of the fediverse should choose whether or not another instance should federate with them.
(DIR) Post #9jYawzR24sEslBkXJ2 by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-05T11:17:31Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@cj @deFrisselle The current goal is to block Gab trying to reduce hate speech federation.I'd like to ask what is the true purpose of the PR, seeing that it won't have any effect on the fight against hate speech dissemination on the fediverse - a downside that doesn't justify the "correctness" of the PR you believe in.
(DIR) Post #9jYawzfZCprhUGY8xc by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-05T11:19:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cj @deFrisselle So, as said before, if we have mechanisms to block hate speech on the fediverse, why bother with an ineffective way to make it difficult? Don't you believe in the mechanisms the Fediverse has to block hate speech propagation?
(DIR) Post #9jYawzsgQ4MC8wgcPA by cj@mastodon.technology
2019-06-05T11:38:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xinayderBecause it is *Tuskydevs* speech to block it. You are trying to censor them and prevent them from expressing their discrimination against hate speech.> Who can assure me that you're not going to block any other "innocent" instances because you dislike their management or the opinions some of their user shares?YOU. You have the Liberty to fork the code, modify it, distribute it!@deFrisselle
(DIR) Post #9jYax02xnqa2epUpQe by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-05T11:48:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cj @deFrisselle So that's your answer to "I don't like the direction the development is going"? What if people don't have resources to build the app themselves?
(DIR) Post #9jYax0F152DnGD8SDQ by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-05T11:49:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cj @deFrisselle I don't want to have to build and readapt the code base whenever you add a feature because you think by censoring a SINGLE instance is beneficial to the community. I already asked, what about other instances? If you want to manifest against hate speech, don't be limited to a single instance and look forward to making a block list. Use toot.cafe's block instance list, for example.
(DIR) Post #9jYax0OaVRsTjtc68O by cj@mastodon.technology
2019-06-05T11:58:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xinayder> So that's your answer to "I don't like the direction the development is going"?Free Software has your back, this is the #1 reason to fork. See: most FOSS projects that have major forks.> What if people don't have resources to build the app themselves?Tough. With Free Software they're not entitled to Tuskydev's work as they demand it.Plus, resourceful people can swoop in and steal sad users@deFrisselle
(DIR) Post #9jYax0Wk18Oq9BQbqK by cj@mastodon.technology
2019-06-05T12:00:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xinayder> I already asked, what about other instances?And I already responded: you're conceding Tuskydevs is behaving ethically, and we can finally move on.> If you want to manifest against hate speech, don't be limited to a single instance and look forward to making a block list.Great point. Keep arguing for that. But then you're really committed to saying that Tuskydev's actions are ethical.@deFrisselle
(DIR) Post #9jYax0fFVVCmZZPP6W by cj@mastodon.technology
2019-06-05T12:04:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xinayderSo I have to ask... Do you now feel Tuskydev is behaving ethically? Because if not, the points you raised don't matter because you don't believe in them, and they're just a distraction.The foundational thing we are arguing is whether Tuskydev is behaving ethically, and only after that can you attempt to determine where their morals lie with the dividing line on hate speech.@deFrisselle
(DIR) Post #9jYax0psrxiD6YNtgG by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-05T12:15:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cj @deFrisselle and even then I don't agree with blocking it on client level.
(DIR) Post #9jYax0ykL0njY2WyUi by deFrisselle@liberdon.com
2019-06-06T03:11:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xinayder @cj Let the users have the control It is already there That is the PR campaign for Mastodon that go me here No #Censorship, Mysterious Bans, or Curation that happens on the big Social Media platform The Mastodon Devs have already given the users of their platform the tools to self curate their own feeds without the intervention of Instance Admins, Project Devs or Third Party devs
(DIR) Post #9jYbHYJg6CwGjb7AMC by deFrisselle@liberdon.com
2019-06-06T03:14:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xinayder @cj It abuse of power When I think I'm getting far too many unsavory toots from account on one instance that blocking those accounts is too troublesome, I block all posts from that instance and it just effects me Seems when a dev gets offended by toots from users of an instance it effects the whole Fediverse
(DIR) Post #9jYbsqoSIDJ8oZIOJc by cj@mastodon.technology
2019-06-05T11:42:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xinayderYes I believe in the existing mechanisms and I think the purpose of the PR is for Tuskydevs to use their Liberty of Free Speech to express their discrimination against hate speech.People that hate the paradox of tolerance can use their Liberty under Free Software to fork, modify, redistribute, and run without this bit of speech.Therefore I can be for both, things are not a dichotomy.@deFrisselle
(DIR) Post #9jYbsqyjfzWzKS6bL6 by cj@mastodon.technology
2019-06-05T11:49:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xinayderI don't know how many times I need to keep restating this in terms of first principles about the Principle of Freedom of Speech and Four Software Freedoms, and how many times you will keep bringing up abstract hypothetical extremes to try to reducto-ad-absurdum + Kant Categorical Imperative disprove it.But I will continue to happily rephrase it repeatedly until you would like to discontinue.@deFrisselle
(DIR) Post #9jYbsr8J6PBfo8aFG4 by deFrisselle@liberdon.com
2019-06-06T03:21:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cj @xinayder Talks about Principals of Freedom of Speech on the topic of Censoring a Mastodon Instance in the Fediverse Oy!
(DIR) Post #9jYtSGUKWSfjnlM3P6 by bigl0af@social.foxfam.club
2019-06-06T06:38:33.221396Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cj yeah i'm glad webkit, openssh, libc, etc don't hardcode bugs in on purpose. This isn't a question of ethics imo...this is a question o shit software. Tusky is good now, don't introduce a bug and call it a feature. That's what this is, a shitty PR. Fuck it, I might go ahead and fork on principle.@deFrisselle @xinayder