Notices by :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: (kaniini@pleroma.site), page 140
-
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: (kaniini@pleroma.site)'s status on Sunday, 23-Jun-2019 18:11:29 EDT 
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy:
@Laurelai
yeah but then they go to google and have your app removed from the app store in their regime.
and that's my point, really.
these regimes are incompetent, they will look at apps, see Tusky blocked gab and think "hey, maybe we can get them to do the same for us"
and sure, i expect maloki, conny and all of them to have a spine and send them packing, but that removes a potential tool used to resist the regime (mobile fediverse client) from the market
and so that's what i am getting at when i say that publicly demonstrating willingness to bend freedom 0 may get you targeted in the future.
this isn't to say don't bend freedom 0. it makes perfect sense to bend freedom 0 in some cases.
Gab trying to use the goodwill established by the global fediverse community for their own purpose is a valid reason to bend freedom 0 in my book. -
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: (kaniini@pleroma.site)'s status on Sunday, 23-Jun-2019 18:03:40 EDT
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy:
@Laurelai
when they can, they do. but a lot of the smaller regimes are quite incompetent and so there are many ways around the blocks. so they use a two-pronged approach. -
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: (kaniini@pleroma.site)'s status on Sunday, 23-Jun-2019 18:01:51 EDT
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy:
@Laurelai
there is no doubt that Google is always willing and able to violate freedom 0. -
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: (kaniini@pleroma.site)'s status on Sunday, 23-Jun-2019 18:01:16 EDT
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy:
@Laurelai
that's a fair point, i'm mainly talking about the smaller regimes that don't have the same weight as China does. they *would* make that case if they saw the fediverse as a threat. -
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: (kaniini@pleroma.site)'s status on Sunday, 23-Jun-2019 17:57:08 EDT
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy:
@Laurelai @emsenn
it's not meaningless.
it is very plausible that China and other regimes will require GAFAM to produce censored versions of apps or remove them from app stores in their market.
and by very plausible, I mean they are already doing this.
and when it comes to FOSS apps, that means there's always someone willing to fork the app, pass it off as the real thing in China and then introduce the additional blocks (and probably also telemetry straight to the CCP)
and so my point is that the real purpose of freedom 0 is to stand up to this kind of behaviour from publishers.
the fediverse (well a future form of it) can be a powerful tool for resisting regimes.
but to be clear, introducing arbitrary restrictions (even if for a good cause) *does* bend freedom 0. the question is whether or not it's worth it to bend freedom 0. for Tusky, it was, and that's fine. -
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: (kaniini@pleroma.site)'s status on Sunday, 23-Jun-2019 17:49:10 EDT
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy:
@Laurelai @emsenn
you don't understand because you are looking at it from the perspective of how GAFAM do business here in the west.
if you look at it from the perspective of how GAFAM do business in China, in Tajikistan, etc, then it will become clear how demonstrating willingness to bend freedom 0 can result in pressure to further bend freedom 0.
again, I fully support Tusky in their decision. i'm just saying that there may be future consequences. -
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: (kaniini@pleroma.site)'s status on Sunday, 23-Jun-2019 17:47:06 EDT
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy:
@Laurelai @emsenn
to be clear, what i am saying is that GAFAM are the actual problem here.
GAFAM, being in a position of power, can force further bending of freedom 0 beyond what the author intends.
as i said elsewhere: freedom 0 has it's place, but Picard has violated the prime directive before where it made sense to do so. and I do support Tusky in their decision to say "fuck gab"
i'm just saying that decision may come at a future cost.
any tool that can be used to show fascists the door can be later used to show non-facists the door. -
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: (kaniini@pleroma.site)'s status on Sunday, 23-Jun-2019 17:42:21 EDT
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy:
@Laurelai @emsenn
freedom 0 doesn't have to take the paradox of tolerance into account, because it is not intended to be absolute.
and, that's not what i am saying anyway.
my point is that because of the anti-gab functionality, Google may push back on Tusky in the future and say that they have to block instances related to falun gong in the Chinese market, for example.
and so this is what I mean when I say, once you bend freedom 0, you bend it forever.
the solution isn't to not say "fuck gab" if you want to say "fuck gab", the solution is to remove GAFAM from the pipeline entirely. this preserves your speech and reduces the risk of bending freedom 0. -
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: (kaniini@pleroma.site)'s status on Sunday, 23-Jun-2019 17:37:10 EDT
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy:
@tuxcrafting @nova this will be corrected with the next AP revision, but as:Public posts will likely still require no explicit authorization for fetching. -
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: (kaniini@pleroma.site)'s status on Sunday, 23-Jun-2019 17:34:03 EDT
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy:
@emsenn
and so, i believe that freedom 0 is quite important.
but freedom 0 doesn't necessarily mean what the purists think it means.
if a software developer with a third-party publisher (in Tusky's case, Google) wants to make their software say "fuck gab" when people log into gab, that's mostly fine. but expressing this speech does come at a cost: your app is now more vulnerable to influence from Google in terms of it's behaviour.
and, of course, this behaviour gets cited as an example when GAFAM shows up to the authoritarian regime to offer their services.
and so, there is a time and place for bending freedom 0. for Tusky, blocking Gab was that time and place. but there is a non-zero chance that they get burned for it later, through Google requiring them to add other domains to the blocklist.
and Fedilab waffling was pointless, they published a version with the functionality. once you bend freedom 0, it's bent forever. publishers will use the prior existence of the functionality to force it's reintroduction if they are motivated to do so. -
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: (kaniini@pleroma.site)'s status on Sunday, 23-Jun-2019 17:27:08 EDT
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy:
@emsenn
like, a key thing to understand is, a lot of authoritarian regimes are quite incompetent. they are blissfully unaware of what is technically possible or not technically possible. when you build systems that demonstrate something is possible, it can have unintended consequences.
authoritarian regimes tend to use inconsequential metadata to make their case. intelligent people know those kinds of arguments are ultimately worthless. but authoritarian regimes make it a point to ensure that the common folks are as technically illiterate as they themselves are. that's what keeps them in power.
and so, certain situations lead to other situations that may seem unobvious to those of us living in the (mostly) free world, because these situations don't make sense in a (mostly) free world. -
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: (kaniini@pleroma.site)'s status on Sunday, 23-Jun-2019 17:20:47 EDT
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy:
@emsenn
as someone who has been building tech for dissidents for most of my life, a lot of takes i read on here make me shake my head -
emsenn of Teraum (emsenn@tenforward.social)'s status on Saturday, 22-Jun-2019 10:55:56 EDT 
emsenn of Teraum
Subtoot, why are you "building a better Internet" before looking at how marginalized populations in authoritarian oppressive regions have been using the Internet for the past decade?
If you wanted to understand the real threats that online communications face, you'd look to any of the millions who've challenged those threats, rather than wanting unthreatened people to gather around to hypothesize as to what those threats might be.
-
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: (kaniini@pleroma.site)'s status on Sunday, 23-Jun-2019 17:18:54 EDT
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy:
@hj that's 💯% valid -
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: (kaniini@pleroma.site)'s status on Sunday, 23-Jun-2019 17:17:01 EDT
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy:
@hj excuse me i'm not a BOT -
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: (kaniini@pleroma.site)'s status on Sunday, 23-Jun-2019 17:16:16 EDT
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy:
hey gab CTO my root password is hunter2 hack me if you can -
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: (kaniini@pleroma.site)'s status on Sunday, 23-Jun-2019 17:15:33 EDT
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy:
@hj rabbit/rabbit2 of course -
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: (kaniini@pleroma.site)'s status on Sunday, 23-Jun-2019 17:14:28 EDT
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy:
are emoji valid pronouns now? can my pronouns be 🐰/🐇? -
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: (kaniini@pleroma.site)'s status on Sunday, 23-Jun-2019 17:13:13 EDT
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy:
@cwebber @liaizon @macgirvin
(and people shouldn't do broken stuff like ship "Pleroma" with a broken default configuration that only allows federation with instances the package maintainer personally federates with in the name of "security", instead we should be working to solve the actual security problems!) -
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: (kaniini@pleroma.site)'s status on Sunday, 23-Jun-2019 17:11:34 EDT
:abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy: :abunhdhop: :abunhd: :abunhdhappyhop: :abunhdhappy:
@liaizon @macgirvin
my opinion is that temporary mitigations are fine (like sending a message that app developers and instance admins don't want gab playing in their sandbox), but we should not allow mitigations to distract from the real work of building a resilient OCAP-based adaptation of ActivityPub.
i'm patiently waiting on @cwebber right now, he is planning to release a spec that should satisfy everyone's requirements.
All Jonkman Microblog content and data are available under the