Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

F-Droids statement on their ban of Gab

f-droid.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 102 posts

Re: F-Droids statement on their ban of Gab

#91

Post by smsm42 »

probably_wrong wrote: post #38
RickSanchez2600 wrote: post #24

Earlier 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…

> 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…

Free speech with complex government-dictated rules is not a free speech, it's government-approved speech. The government can be very tolerant or very strict, but the very fact of control and the very possibility that the government can, if it wanted to, ban the speech it doesn't like, merely based on its content, is the absence of free speech. If I can tell you what to do anytime I want, and prevent you from doing something anytime I want, you are not free - even if I'm not ordering you around right now.

Re: F-Droids statement on their ban of Gab

#92

Post by probably_wrong »

smsm42 wrote: post #91
probably_wrong wrote: post #38

Earlier 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…

Free speech with complex government-dictated rules is not a free speech, it's government-approved speech. The government can be very tolerant or very strict, but the very fact of control and the very possibility that the government can, if it wanted to, ban the speech it doesn't like, merely based on its content, is the absence of free speech. If I can tell you what to do anytime I want, and prevent you from doing so…

I feel you are missing the same point that the commenter I replied to.

You are applying a US-centric definition of "free", in which "freedom" means roughly "no one can tell me what I should or should't do". Under this definition, you are free because no one is forcing you to do anything.

However! Other countries apply a different definition of "free", meaning roughly "the most vulnerable members of our society cannot be truly free if we let those with the bigger clubs do whatever they want". Under this definition, curtailing the "freedom" of some increases the average "freedom" of society at large, and is therefore more free.

Both definitions have problems, and I feel plenty of discussions speak past each other because two people use the same word for two different things. I understand your point of view, but once it leads(like other commenter says) into "Europe doesn't have free speech" I get suspicious.

Re: F-Droids statement on their ban of Gab

#93

Post by majewsky »

repolfx wrote: post #76
majewsky wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Most people don't agree with the principle of "free speech without any asterisks". Die-hard free speech advocates are a fringe group (which is why they need to use a fringe service like Gab). (Side-note: Of course, you can probably come up with a poll where a majority of people respond that they support free speech, but you know how easy it is to skew polls. Asking for "Yes" or "No" does not make people cons…

That's a self-contradiction. You say most people don't agree with free speech, then you state if you ask people if they agree with it actually most will say yes, but that's meaningless because their opinion would be ill considered. I think all this shows is you don't care what other people think. Either they agree with you in which case they're right, or they disagree in which case it doesn't matter because they aren…

I've been called a lot of things, but totalitarian? That's a new one.

My point is that free-speech advocates use opinion polls as an argument, saying that a majority supports free speech. But this argument is misguided because when you actually talk to people and make them consider the ramifications of radically free speech (e.g. "Do you support the right of other people to call for you being murdered?"), their opinions usually become much more nuanced.

Re: F-Droids statement on their ban of Gab

#94

Post by 0815test »

rvz wrote: post #3

> F-Droid is taking a political stance here. Very bad decision here. > "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." You might as well not package FLOSS (Free Libre Open Source Software) Facebook/Twitter/Mastodon clients because there are also bad actors on those platforms who harass others based o…

The key word here is promote. Rightly or wrongly, F-Droid maintainers feel that the Gab application is not politically neutral, but rather explicitly promotes these broadly-undesirable things. Given the views that Gab developers have expressed in the past, they might have a point.

Re: F-Droids statement on their ban of Gab

#95

Post by beatgammit »

kthejoker2 wrote: post #65
lvturner wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll bite - but first some caveats. I didn't follow the case and I'm only tangentially aware of it, I don't know who said what to whom and to how any of it is handled. I can't say with 100% certainty knowing the full explanation of the case that I would side with either the Christian bakers or the customer. However though, it should be within a business owners right to deny someone access to a paid service or good on…

Even if that business receives public benefits (directly or otherwise)? Homosexuals pay taxes for streets and cops and electricity, under threat of violence. Using those taxpayer services to then deny some taxpayers the same service you provide others is the functioeconomical equivalent of slavery.

Only if it's directly receiving government funds or dealing on behalf of the government should there be any restriction on whom they serve. Most businesses don't directly receive government funds.

For example, it should be illegal for a charter school to refuse to accept a gay student because they receive funding directly from the government. Same with a vehicle emissions test business that provides registrations. Or a hospital that has an emergency room.

Every business gets some amount of benefit from government services, but that isn't the same as it being funded by or operating in behalf of government.

Re: F-Droids statement on their ban of Gab

#97

Post by wtfishackernews »

inawarminister wrote: post #31
jasonvorhe wrote: post #22

Their work, their infrastructure, their call. And a good one as well. Don't provide nazis with anything.

Would you support the same thing done by, say, Christian bakers not providing a customer for religious-ideological reason?

Being a nazi isn't a protected class.

Re: F-Droids statement on their ban of Gab

#98

Post by repolfx »

majewsky wrote: post #93
repolfx wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a self-contradiction. You say most people don't agree with free speech, then you state if you ask people if they agree with it actually most will say yes, but that's meaningless because their opinion would be ill considered. I think all this shows is you don't care what other people think. Either they agree with you in which case they're right, or they disagree in which case it doesn't matter because they aren…

I've been called a lot of things, but totalitarian? That's a new one. My point is that free-speech advocates use opinion polls as an argument, saying that a majority supports free speech. But this argument is misguided because when you actually talk to people and make them consider the ramifications of radically free speech (e.g. "Do you support the right of other people to call for you being murdered?"), their opini…

Yes, asking more precise questions will give more nuanced answers. But that doesn't invalidate the vaguer statement - most people do support speech being much more free than restricted, especially in America. That matters: you can't say "ah ha, but sometimes when given extreme examples people have doubt, so banning speech is totally OK". That's not what they said when they were asked.

And by the way, I'm sure I can easily take that person prevaricating because they were given the "calling for you to be murdered" example and bring them back to supporting "radically" free speech. Just ask if they've ever said something like, "Damnit, I'm going to kill that guy!" when they got frustrated or upset. And if the answer is yes, point out that if they're against "other people calling for someone to be murdered" then they'd themselves be in prison. They'd object by saying something like, yes but of course I didn't really mean it, that isn't the same thing at all, and then you ask how anyone could tell and how sure they are they could defend themselves in court, if an enemy was claiming it should be taken seriously.

In the end the reason for "radical" protections for free speech are logical - the consequences of not having it are worse than the consequences for having it. Genuine mob-raising "let's murder this guy" speech is so incredibly rare compared to political suppression it's not worth worrying about.

Re: F-Droids statement on their ban of Gab

#99

Post by eropple »

s9w wrote: post #88
zaarn wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The political opposition was not democratically elected. They were elected by the rules--well, modulo foreign interference by their handlers--but that doesn't make it democratic and doesn't make it right and only serves to underline the stranglehold a vocally threatening minority holds on the system.

This is a recurring theme for the right wing in America. There's little reason to respect or trust their good intentions; fascists are an autoimmune disease of liberalism and they are demonstrating nearly every symptom.

Re: F-Droids statement on their ban of Gab

#100

Post by smsm42 »

probably_wrong wrote: post #92
smsm42 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech with complex government-dictated rules is not a free speech, it's government-approved speech. The government can be very tolerant or very strict, but the very fact of control and the very possibility that the government can, if it wanted to, ban the speech it doesn't like, merely based on its content, is the absence of free speech. If I can tell you what to do anytime I want, and prevent you from doing so…

I feel you are missing the same point that the commenter I replied to. You are applying a US-centric definition of "free", in which "freedom" means roughly "no one can tell me what I should or should't do". Under this definition, you are free because no one is forcing you to do anything. However! Other countries apply a different definition of "free", meaning roughly "the most vulnerable members of our society cannot…

> You are applying a US-centric definition of "free"

There's no other sensible definition of "free". Of course one can say word "free" and mean something having nothing to do with freedom, but that would be just an Orwellian perversion of language, not substantial discussion. Words are means of communicating ideas, and the only idea of freedom of speech that makes sense is one where government can not dictate what can and can not be spoken.

> Other countries apply a different definition of "free"

They are subverting the language in hopes that not talking about censorship would mean citizenship are not aware they they live under a censorious regime. However, whether you talk about it or not, the fact censorship is there and there is substantial and qualitative difference between having and not having government censorship of speech. Saying "we just have different definition of 'free'" is like alcoholic saying "I just have a different definition of 'sober'" - he can have any definition he wants, but that doesn't change the fact he's drunk.

> curtailing the "freedom" of some increases the average "freedom" of society at large, and is therefore more free

It's just sophistry, these word do not signify any real things or events behind them. There's no such thing as "freedom of society at large", not combined of freedoms of the people. Of course, you can talk about it - you can talk about anything, words are malleable - but these words would be just simulacrum, motivated reasoning, juggling words. You can say "freedom is slavery, the true freedom is embracing the state control of everything" - but these words are not defining the idea of freedom, they're just perverting the word for propaganda purposes.

> "Europe doesn't have free speech"

It doesn't, for most countries and virtually any sensible definition of "free speech" that does not hollow the term out to make it mean "whatever the state censorship wants to be spoken, can be spoken".

Post reply on HN