@emacsen @therealraccoon @bhaugen @cwebber

I'm not sure what you meant, but IMO Tusky (as an example) is not violating Freedom 0 because any developer can modify the code as they wish, and redistribute the fork as well. It would be going against the Tusky team's freedoms to expect them to distribute a build that can be used by anybody for any purpose they wish (not to mention technically impossible to create software that contains any feature imaginable!)

Anyway, I looped you in more for the discussion about federated blocklists.
1 day ago
1 day ago
@therealraccoon @bhaugen

cc @emacsen and @cwebber who were talking about this issue recently
1 day ago
@therealraccoon @bhaugen

Yeah, once we have federation working on CommonsPub/MoodleNet we could for example use the existing functionality to enable this, with communities (ActivityPub Group Actors, meaning several users working together) curating lists of links (ActivityPub Collections) to instances or users/actors they suggest blocking. Then users/apps/instances could subscribe to those lists (ActivityPub Follow) in order to keep their copy (which is added to their blacklist) up to date. Future functionality could allow more open collaboration on those lists too (upvote/downvote of entries, submission of suggested additions or amendments, etc)
1 day ago
@codewiz @cathal @fuzzylynx @fedilab @Tusky @karen

or you could say "what is welcome in *their* fediverse"
1 day ago
@codewiz @cathal @fuzzylynx @fedilab @Tusky @karen

There is no such thing as a neutral party. We don't need a central repository of blocklists, but a decentralised (potentially federated) way for users, admins, and developers to all choose what is welcome in the fediverse and what is not.
1 day ago
@fuzzylynx @cathal @Tusky @codewiz @fedilab

Not sure why you keep assuming authoritarian intent. I am not requiring anything of devs. I am just expressing my disappointment in the choices of some devs, and my applause and support as a user to the choices of other devs.
1 day ago
@maloki thank you 🙇
1 day ago
@fuzzylynx @cathal @Tusky @codewiz @fedilab

Apps could implement something akin to adblockers, where users can subscribe to several blocklists curated by the community. And apps (whether client or server) and server admins could preconfigure defaults, just like extensions like uBlock Origin do.
1 day ago
@codewiz @fedilab @Tusky @fuzzylynx

I think the arrow of causality is the other direction: they are already arguing such things as a strategy to manipulate liberals into enabling them.
1 day ago
@fuzzylynx @Tusky @codewiz @fedilab

I am not "obliging" anyone, and I'm not calling for any authority to enforce something like you're talking about (though the likes of Google and Apple can and do choose whether to distribute such tools). What I am saying is that when developers have the ability to make such a choice, choosing not to isn't some default neutral position. They made their choices. And I as a user am choosing which app to use and support.
1 day ago
@fedilab

I saw that. Why did you decide to give away your freedom of speech to Google?

@Tusky @codewiz
1 day ago
@karen @piggo It's not about user safety IMO, it's about enabling certain people doing certain things. Even Google and Apple have policies about what kind of apps they distribute. Fedilab simply decided to wait for Google to tell them what to do...
1 day ago
@karen I recon users will always have the choice, based on the choices that developers make. Just like I chose to switch from Fedilab to Tusky. An important point here is that the devs of both those apps have made a political decision here. There is no neutral position.
1 day ago
@karen It should definitely be done at the instance-level, while *also* blocking at an app-level. Ultimately I can see us having a mechanism similar to ad-blockers, where fediverse users could curate blocklists that users can subscribe to, and apps (servers or clients) and instance admins could suggest defaults.
1 day ago
@fuzzylynx @Tusky @codewiz @fedilab

It is the responsibility of *all* of us! We should block them, and definitely not enable them. Everywhere we can.

To paraphrase Churchill: "Even though large [instances] have fallen or may fall into the grip of the odious apparatus of Nazis, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in the code, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight in the configs, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our federation, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the app stores, we shall fight in the servers and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."
1 day ago
@karen I think that's right
1 day ago
@codewiz @Tusky

It's a political choice. Tusky decided to take a stance against fascism, while @fedilab is not.
1 day ago
Switched back to @Tusky as my fediverse client (bye fedilab)
1 day ago
Juggling so many spoons....
3 days ago