Posts by xinayder@mastodon.technology
(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 #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 #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 #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 #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 #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 #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 #9jqCq8zRFnDeJRKA2i by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-14T15:05:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir ironically it's closed source and the project is called OpenVR
(DIR) Post #9jw4tfNtdPycxxgzIm by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-17T10:44:54Z
4 likes, 1 repeats
@maloki well done for effectively killing Tusky. what's the next step? going closed source? blocking anyone that disagrees with you?I am saddened that I'll have to stop using Tusky for such childish and unprofessional manners you've shown over the last 2 weeks.
(DIR) Post #9jwLBBYIt4BUvFw5C4 by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-17T10:42:18Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
Sad day for #tusky users: the unprofessional attitude towards blocking certain instances and redirecting users to a rick roll video has been merged.https://github.com/tuskyapp/Tusky/pull/1303#DeleteTusky
(DIR) Post #9jwLBBxTNUJkBJiBQO by xinayder@mastodon.technology
2019-06-17T10:46:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@askosh correct, but the developers don't think so.