I find it incredibly surprising that many #FOSS or #FLOSS folk take the 0th pillar's "freedom of use" to mistakenly mean "freedom of usage by creating a software feature" instead of the true intended meaning: "freedom of usage under the license conditions".

Because that's what RMS has always been about: the software licenses being symmetrical in power between the distributor of software and receiver of software. It creates a level playing field in terms of what "politics" are contained in the software.

Show thread

Because that is the core of Software Freedom/Liberty: the right for a Person to take a software that expresses a [political] view they disagree with, obtain a copy of that software with equal capability as the distributor, modify that [political] view to be more amenable, and then redistribute it without any additional licensing burdens.

It's never about what specific views or capabilities are in the software itself. Heck, you could fork and purposefully add bugs and it is still no less Freedom respecting.

Show thread

So trying to argue the 0th pillar "freedom of use" is about specific software capabilities is mistaken. It's a gateway to the un-reconcilable "well N users demand my software have feature X, and an equal number also demand an incompatible feature Y." How could one ever satisfy the 0th pillar under this condition, and why would RMS never discuss this situation?

Perhaps because it is the wrong interpretation. :) RMS spends time at the "licensing level", not at the "what does your software do exactly" level.

Show thread

@cj
I'll fork Tusky, and charge users of Mastodon.social or mastodon.technology instances or redirect sign on to the gab.com instance because I disagree with the admins politics. See how asinine that seems? #GetWokeGoBroke

Side note: Ultimately, the division being caused by the peer pressure of instance admins blocking other instances who refuse to block gab will be the end of the fediverse. The community has a Hardline split on this issue. Myself included

@TheCzar @cj If you do this, and package it, I will recommend your tusky over the other one (and I have set a good couple of people up with tusky, and expect to do more in the future)

@jeffcliff Appreciate the free Tusky publicity, and can only imagine the reasons you'll have to list to folks when you try to convince them not to use upstream.

If the reasoning includes confusing censorship (the tool) with free speech (the multiple principles), "Tusky ain't Libre Software", or something along the lines of "tech shouldn't be political" then I've got Bingo!

@TheCzar

@cj @TheCzar tusky is free/libre, and I can choose not to use upstream, because this censorship is a braindead wrong approach to gab. gab shouldn't be silenced, full stop.

@cj @TheCzar Just like I suggest people not use gab's version of mastodon, because gab censors, too.

@jeffcliff I don't see why Gab shouldn't be silenced. I have not been impressed with any of the arguments coming out of that instance. If any arguments come out at all, because a lot of what I have seen is just pure hatred of Jews and blacks with slurs and racial stereotyping.

That's not a productive community. It's not a healthy community.

@jeffcliff Also: censorship is a tool, like a hammer, and it is wielded to further a specific higher purpose. Much like hammers can build houses or flaming crosses, censorship can be used to improve discourse or silence specific ideas. Hating against "censorship" makes about as much sense as hating hammers. It opens one's self to criticism for being anti-higher-purpose for all tool uses. So it's kind of an intellectually lazy stance: more nuance around the tool's use is needed.

@cj No, it's not a tool - it's damage to the network and I will route around it.

ยท 1 ยท 0 ยท 0

@jeffcliff I've argued about why it is a tool and you have disagreed without presenting a counterargument and without presenting one of your own.

I get you will oppose me, I'm not doubting that. I am doubting your rationale behind your fanatic hatred of a tool.

@cj It's not a tool, it's damage. You're committing a category error comparing the two.

@jeffcliff No, you're the one confusing censorship -- the tool -- with the damage censorship causes (information not flowing) which has no English name.

@cj that's like splitting hairs between "murder" (the person who's dead) and "murder" (the act of killing). It's the same goddamn thing

@jeffcliff It's not splitting hairs, and if you were arguing in good faith you wouldn't dismiss my argument like that.

It's a standard distinction separating a cause (censoring) from the effect (information not travelling).

I get the feeling you are frustrated, perhaps because the position you've taken cannot handle this basic nuance. I understand its frustrating so I'd rather just walk away from this pointless discussion.

@cj I'll argue in good faith that the promotion of censorship isn't *automatically a priori in bad faith*. I'd normally hold that but in this case I'll let that go

Sign in to participate in the conversation
niu.moe

Welcome to your niu world ! We are a cute and loving international community ๏ผฏ(โ‰งโ–ฝโ‰ฆ)๏ผฏ !