I don’t like Tusky because the developer takes a political stance to what instances he will allow to use with the app. If I create a socialist mastodon server and the Tusky Dev one day decides he doesn’t like socialism and he bans it, why should I support his decisions to ban other mastodon servers that I don’t agree with?
hate to break it to you, but your First Amendment freezepeach crap doesn’t apply to the Fediverse. defederation is a thing, and all instances do it. it’s just that the Tusky dev decided to defederate his app too. and you know what, that’s his right because he is not the United States government. if you don’t like it, you can always :sparkles:fork it:sparkles: and make your own.
Flawed logic. Saying the dev will ban random things he doesn’t like is wrong since it ignores the fact he’s only disallowing something we’re all agree it’s toxic and will only destroy the site at the long run.
That’s completely wrong. People agree on things we don’t want to see, like how most forums on the internet ban porn, which is not something bad but nobody wants to see that while browsing funny cat videos.
It’s called agreement of civility. This will make the site last longer.
What are you even talking about? It’s not like anyone forces you to connect to a particular instance, but IMO blocking the user from voluntarily connecting to it is unethical and the abuse of the developer’s power.
Are you not following the conversation? What was so hard to understand? This stance of “they’re taking my freedom away” is always ridiculous; as I already stated, allowing that kind of content will hurt the platform in the long run.
It’s an extremely easy decision, either prohibit that content and as a community agree it’s the only kind of stuff nobody wants to see, or blindly allow anything and see lemmy die.
The challenge I have with this is, mastodon servers should be able to ban other servers that are toxic, but once an app starts blocking the ability to connect to certain services because of political views it becomes a different beast IMO. Servers blocking other servers is maintaining community health. Applications blocking servers is censorship. Pirate servers would be next. Then porn. Then gun sites, etc. It may be slippery slope fallacy but it sets a dangerous precedent imo.
I don’t like Tusky because the developer takes a political stance to what instances he will allow to use with the app.
If this is true, then they’re similarly abusing power like the big corporations does. It’s worse even. they are left with less choice. this is in fact some sort of oppression. if we don’t want them to be around then we can simply ban them from the servers, and that’s enough. let the nazi have their little own shower party, we shouldn’t choose people we deem as sick to further them away from our society. that would even make them more solid and have more stronger feelings against us. remember, they are just humans like you and me, once also an innocent child who may be just like you at first. rather than doing that we should just leave them be, oppression isn’t just the way.
Because the servers that were banned were extreme right-wing instances not socialist instances. If a club I go dance at lets socialists in, but tells nazi punks to fuck off I think that’s a pretty cool club. If a bar lets in nazis I won’t go there.
First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out, because I’m not a Nazi. Everything was pretty cool after that, because taking away a platform from people who advocate for genocide is totally reasonable and a good call.
I replied to a different comment but I think there’s a difference between servers (bars) banning other servers, and apps disallowing access to certain servers.
If the app became the defacto connection to Mastodon, blacklisting a server will result in new servers being created, and then those will be banned as well. Eventually it would be easier to whitelist servers. At that point the tusky app becomes the gatekeeper for ideologies. Which I think would be bad.
you’re saying that as if Tusky was the only way to access Mastodon out there (which it is not). besides, Nazis should be locked out, because, y’know, Nazis are bad
“They were students in or recent graduates of rich and leading colleges and universities,” he writes of the audience. “They were mean and tough but somehow, I sensed that there wasn’t a radical in the bunch. For if they were radical how could they laugh at a poor ignorant farmer who didn’t know his left hand from his right? If they had been radical they would have been weeping, asking what had produced him. And if they had been radical they would not have been sitting, soaking up a film produced for their edification and enjoyment by the Establishment of the establishment — CBS.”
I don’t like Tusky because the developer takes a political stance to what instances he will allow to use with the app. If I create a socialist mastodon server and the Tusky Dev one day decides he doesn’t like socialism and he bans it, why should I support his decisions to ban other mastodon servers that I don’t agree with?
hate to break it to you, but your First Amendment freezepeach crap doesn’t apply to the Fediverse. defederation is a thing, and all instances do it. it’s just that the Tusky dev decided to defederate his app too. and you know what, that’s his right because he is not the United States government. if you don’t like it, you can always :sparkles:fork it:sparkles: and make your own.
Flawed logic. Saying the dev will ban random things he doesn’t like is wrong since it ignores the fact he’s only disallowing something we’re all agree it’s toxic and will only destroy the site at the long run.
That’s developer power abuse. I don’t care about downvotes
That’s completely wrong. People agree on things we don’t want to see, like how most forums on the internet ban porn, which is not something bad but nobody wants to see that while browsing funny cat videos.
It’s called agreement of civility. This will make the site last longer.
What are you even talking about? It’s not like anyone forces you to connect to a particular instance, but IMO blocking the user from voluntarily connecting to it is unethical and the abuse of the developer’s power.
Are you not following the conversation? What was so hard to understand? This stance of “they’re taking my freedom away” is always ridiculous; as I already stated, allowing that kind of content will hurt the platform in the long run.
It’s an extremely easy decision, either prohibit that content and as a community agree it’s the only kind of stuff nobody wants to see, or blindly allow anything and see lemmy die.
Do you even know what we’re talking about? Hint: not lemmy. It’d just like if an email blocked certain domains: malicious and nothing less
Sorry I have to go now, can’t debate. LibrePlanet 2021 is starting in minutes. (Yes I am going there)
Bye
The challenge I have with this is, mastodon servers should be able to ban other servers that are toxic, but once an app starts blocking the ability to connect to certain services because of political views it becomes a different beast IMO. Servers blocking other servers is maintaining community health. Applications blocking servers is censorship. Pirate servers would be next. Then porn. Then gun sites, etc. It may be slippery slope fallacy but it sets a dangerous precedent imo.
If this is true, then they’re similarly abusing power like the big corporations does. It’s worse even. they are left with less choice. this is in fact some sort of oppression. if we don’t want them to be around then we can simply ban them from the servers, and that’s enough. let the nazi have their little own shower party, we shouldn’t choose people we deem as sick to further them away from our society. that would even make them more solid and have more stronger feelings against us. remember, they are just humans like you and me, once also an innocent child who may be just like you at first. rather than doing that we should just leave them be, oppression isn’t just the way.
First they came for those inciting violence and bigotry and I said good fuck those guys.
Seriously though, your argument fails when we get into specifics into what’s being blocked.
IIRC he blocked more than just alt-right Nazi instances.
Don’t worry! There’s still plenty of ways for you to get to Gab, cupcake.
Lol tries to protect the rights of socialists gets called a Nazi.
Because the servers that were banned were extreme right-wing instances not socialist instances. If a club I go dance at lets socialists in, but tells nazi punks to fuck off I think that’s a pretty cool club. If a bar lets in nazis I won’t go there.
First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out, because I’m not a Nazi. Everything was pretty cool after that, because taking away a platform from people who advocate for genocide is totally reasonable and a good call.
I replied to a different comment but I think there’s a difference between servers (bars) banning other servers, and apps disallowing access to certain servers. If the app became the defacto connection to Mastodon, blacklisting a server will result in new servers being created, and then those will be banned as well. Eventually it would be easier to whitelist servers. At that point the tusky app becomes the gatekeeper for ideologies. Which I think would be bad.
you’re saying that as if Tusky was the only way to access Mastodon out there (which it is not). besides, Nazis should be locked out, because, y’know, Nazis are bad
Yes, Nazis are bad.
I’d just point this article out by Chris Hedges for why I disagree with Tuskys actions:
https://www.mintpressnews.com/chris-hedges-cancel-culture-where-liberalism-goes-to-die/275373/
“They were students in or recent graduates of rich and leading colleges and universities,” he writes of the audience. “They were mean and tough but somehow, I sensed that there wasn’t a radical in the bunch. For if they were radical how could they laugh at a poor ignorant farmer who didn’t know his left hand from his right? If they had been radical they would have been weeping, asking what had produced him. And if they had been radical they would not have been sitting, soaking up a film produced for their edification and enjoyment by the Establishment of the establishment — CBS.”