What's a free f-droid alternative?
The alternative is of course to host your own repo. These can be added to the f-droid client.
F-Droids statement on their ban of Gab
81–90 of 102 posts
Re: F-Droids statement on their ban of Gab
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I know plenty of people who critized the government for decisions around and after 2015, publicly even, and none of them were raided, sued, fined or jailed for it. That doesn't mean that these things don't happen. Just one recent example: https://www.einprozent.de/blog/meinungsfreiheit/friedlicher-... or this: https://www.vice.com/de/article/8xe7jg/kuchen-tv-volksverhet...
Your first link goes to a blog that's operated by a known right-wing extremist who is part of the Neuen Rechten and the AfD. The second link is some youtuber doing something that is either extremely dumb or very right-wing and rightfully earned him a visit at the nearest courthouse.
You are free to find other sources, the facts remain the same. I can't talk about (these) political parties without being banned.
If you really think that the guy deserves an unjust sentence for being right-wing, then I'm afraid of people like you. That is exactly what this argument was about: Political opposition being silenced.
Re: F-Droids statement on their ban of Gab
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your first link goes to a blog that's operated by a known right-wing extremist who is part of the Neuen Rechten and the AfD. The second link is some youtuber doing something that is either extremely dumb or very right-wing and rightfully earned him a visit at the nearest courthouse.
You are free to find other sources, the facts remain the same. I can't talk about (these) political parties without being banned. If you really think that the guy deserves an unjust sentence for being right-wing, then I'm afraid of people like you. That is exactly what this argument was about: Political opposition being silenced.
I'm not afraid of right wing people, I just despite right wing extremists. I don't have to look for any sources, you have to convinve me if anything. People rightfully get just sentences for following a party focused on the very same politics that plunged Europe into a second world war.
Re: F-Droids statement on their ban of Gab
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You cannot have both free speech and a code of conduct at the same time. I feel I should point out that this is a point of view that's very popular in the US, but not universal. F-Droids' website makes me belive that they are somewhere in Europe, where the rules for "Free Speech" are different. Also, I'm admittedly not familiar with the nuances of freedom of speech in the USA, but I would believe that your statemen…
Europe does not have free speech. But that cocs conflict with free speech is true independent of national laws I think.
Everyone who claims the EU has free speech does not get it. Free speech does not exist in Europe! And for those fools who claim its the same as in the US and argue with hate Speech let me quote Wikipedia for you:
"The United States does not have hate speech laws, since American courts have repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."
And this is why the US has the best laws for freedom of expression because hate speech is just a pathetic excuse to ban speech the people in power do not like. Its way to bread and gets abused all the time. That is why the EU has not free speech. You can not claim there is free speech when you at the same time ban everything that is deemed "hate speech" punishable by law!
Re: F-Droids statement on their ban of Gab
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is F-Droid not the fediverse.
F-Droid isn't a platform either, you can run your own repository where free speech is priority if you want and offer your own version of F-Droid that comes with your repository compiled in as default. F-Droid too is just a set of protocols. The default app is open source as well and you're free to modify it if you want.
I dunno why you're so committed to not calling a ban a ban. Of course, I have theories. Call a spade a spade mate.
Re: F-Droids statement on their ban of Gab
#86I look forward to F-Droid banning Firefox as well as any and all web-browsers that don't implement a blocklist that perfectly matches their ideology.
Re: F-Droids statement on their ban of Gab
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
F-Droid isn't a platform either, you can run your own repository where free speech is priority if you want and offer your own version of F-Droid that comes with your repository compiled in as default. F-Droid too is just a set of protocols. The default app is open source as well and you're free to modify it if you want.
I dunno why you're so committed to not calling a ban a ban. Of course, I have theories. Call a spade a spade mate.
I have no problem calling it a ban, I just disagree that this is a restriction on your rights or anything since you can just go elsewhere where the ban isn't in effect to do what you want.
Re: F-Droids statement on their ban of Gab
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are free to find other sources, the facts remain the same. I can't talk about (these) political parties without being banned. If you really think that the guy deserves an unjust sentence for being right-wing, then I'm afraid of people like you. That is exactly what this argument was about: Political opposition being silenced.
I'm not afraid of right wing people, I just despite right wing extremists. I don't have to look for any sources, you have to convinve me if anything. People rightfully get just sentences for following a party focused on the very same politics that plunged Europe into a second world war.
So you do want to punish people for simply being the (democratically elected) political opposition, hence proving my point. I think I'll run the other way now.
Re: F-Droids statement on their ban of Gab
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's nothing about allowing Gab apps on F-Droid that denies anybody "the right not to hear something". Just don't install the app, and you won't see what people post on Gab.
The removal of Gab app from F-Droid is precisely exercising of the freedom of the right not to hear something. Gab is just like any other Fediverse client - with an important difference. To show it, let's use an example: for instance, Firefox doesn't brand itself with the logo of a company that abuses free speech to promote and benefit off hate speech. This is exactly what Gab does and - at least for me - which is th…
> If they were not okay with what Gab does, they would not stay there.
So, you're saying if I use Skype, I agree with everything Microsoft does, if I use Gmail or Chrome, I agree with everything Google does, and if I use Facebook, I agree with everything that company does? That seems to not match the reality in about 99.9999% cases.
Re: F-Droids statement on their ban of Gab
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gab allows Free Speech and does not have a code of conduct or ban or censor anyone. They claim this is freedom and the code of conduct is fascism. Anyone who writes a racist comment usually gets called out on it and called an idiot and mocked anyway on Gab. You cannot have both free speech and a code of conduct at the same time. You either allow everything or censor and ban things to a degree. Most of these racist co…
Gab, via their free speech and unwillingness to take down content in general, promotes content that is racist, misogynyst, antifeminist, islamophobic, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ableist, authoritariant, supremacist, and pretty much anti-intellectual. This is why I oppose that platform. Of course you can have free speech as a person and a code of conduct for your service. You are free to say anythi…
> promotes content that is racist
There's worlds of difference between hosting content and promoting content. The first is act of broad tolerance, the second is act of encouragement and agreement. This distinction is so important that the very first Amendment of US Constitution is based on it - the US government is obliged to tolerate any religion, but is explicitly forbidden to promote any.
> and your platform has a right to not want to hear or spread anything.
Once platform takes control over the right to hear, it ceases to be a neutral platform and becomes an editorial force. With private companies, it's usually not a problem - even if an unpopular opinion is suppressed and censored on one platform, it can be published on another. With growing monopolization of social networking, and with low-level infrastructure providers being slowly roped into facilitating censorship, this is becoming less and less true. And then we have to remind ourselves - why exactly do we have that First Amendment? If censorship is so good, why not let the government do it - after all, they are the ones that can do it best! Obviously, there are some bad downsides to it. We should remind ourselves from time to time what are those.