@kuketzblog Very hard to decipher. What does it say, in plain language? That censors wanted F-droid to ban Fedilab and F-droid refused?

@bortzmeyer @kuketzblog

"F-Droid won’t tolerate oppression or harassment against marginalized groups. Because of this, it won’t package nor distribute apps that promote any of these things. This includes that it won’t distribute an app that promotes the usage of previously mentioned website, by either its branding, its pre-filled instance domain or any other direct promotion."

Pretty clear to me! 👍


@rysiek @kuketzblog But completely irrelevant since, apparently the issue at stake was quite different. (People who wanted to ban Fedilab because it doesn't implement their blocking list.)

· · Web · 1 · 0 · 0

@bortzmeyer @kuketzblog well, they explain later that fedilab is implementing certain things that seem to make it okay.

@rysiek @kuketzblog There is no problem at all with Fedilab. The problem is with the censors. (But it is hard to discuss since most people, like the F-droid staff, remain very vague and never discuss concrete things.)

@bortzmeyer @kuketzblog concrete things here are pretty simple: while free speech is important, it is not an acceptable defense when we're dealing with a group that harasses, attacks, or explicitly calls for other groups to be hurt.

What we're talking about here is the Paradox of Tolerance:

F-Droid, Tusky, and a majority of the Fediverse are taking a stance here. A stance against intolerance.

@rysiek @kuketzblog Again, this is not the issue. The issue is the attempt to censor Fedilab, with false accusations.

@bortzmeyer @kuketzblog and F-droid is not doing this:

"We also respect Fedilab’s decision not to hardcode a login block; instead they are actively working on making it easier to block certain domains in the app itself and thus giving users more power to moderate which content they’ll see."

@rysiek @kuketzblog Not F-Droid, but some loonies, for instance reporting Fedilab to Google (on the Play Store).

@bortzmeyer @rysiek @kuketzblog

To my understanding of the statement on F-droid, it's not against Fedilab, or for Tusky. They support both decisions on each project.

It's to prevent for Gab to release its own app (or a fork) on F-droid, branded to their social network and advertising it, with its known and mainly acknowledged problematics.

@r3vlibre @rysiek @kuketzblog This is not obvious and does not appear in the public statement. Hence my initial remark, stating that the statement is very hard to understand, one doesn't even see the issue.

@r3vlibre @rysiek @kuketzblog For instance, I thought at the beginning that it was about Fedilab, but you say it is actually about a possible Gab app?


It didn't clearly mention "Gab", but it's aimed at it, or any other similar websites :

> a website joined the fediverse only half a month ago that is well known to be a “free speech zone” [...] While in theory this might seem to be a good concept, it has serious consequences: things like racism, sexism, verbal abuse, [...] become popular on such instances.


@rysiek @kuketzblog


After, they talk about Tusky and Fedilab, just stating their choices.

Then, they come to say they can't stay neutral (regarding these websites). They didn't say nor mean that Fedilab neutrality is bad, but I agree, the flow can result in that impression.

They conclude:
> it won’t package nor distribute apps [...] that promotes the usage of previously mentioned website, by either its branding, its pre-filled instance domain or any other direct promotion.


@rysiek @kuketzblog


To me, it's clear that it targets apps that promote this kind of website (Gab and alike). Either their own, or a fork one, they rebranded, or configured to have direct access to this kind of instances, and so on.

They don't want that on F-droid.

In the end:
> We respect Tusky’s decision to block mentioned website; [...]. We also respect Fedilab’s decision not to hardcode a login block; [...]

They also stand for their position in favor of Fedilab.


@rysiek @kuketzblog

@rysiek @kuketzblog And for Tusky, it is a matter of power: who should be in Control, the user or the developper? I'm not surprised most programmers think it should be the developper, and that he/she has a right to decide what the user can/cannot see.

@bortzmeyer @rysiek @kuketzblog ah, what a bullshit. Like we show/hide content for the user or decide who you can talk to.
No, if you hang out on the Nazi instance - go and use another client. We won't prevent other users from seeing your bs or from talking to you but we won't provide service to you.
We don't get more control by having less users, quite contrary. Don't twist it.

@rysiek @bortzmeyer @kuketzblog I also read if as they wouldn't accept a gab-branded blog, but think that fedilab'snot quite there.
Not sure I agree, but it's refreshing to see a FOSS flagship like f-droid admit that there's a scale, and that discussions have meaning...

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon - Gougère Network

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!