Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Hardcode a block of gab by default #11129

Open
Laurelai opened this issue Jun 19, 2019 · 15 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
7 participants
@Laurelai
Copy link

commented Jun 19, 2019

They are moving to use mastodon. Please hardcode a block on gab by default in such a way their servers cannot see ours.

@trwnh

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jun 20, 2019

wouldn't a domain/IP block do this?

@Laurelai

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Jun 20, 2019

wouldn't a domain/IP block do this?

Yes but shipping it out by default wll limit the harm they can do, gab has inspired mass shooters and murders.

@TheKinrar

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Jun 20, 2019

Instance admins can suspend gab themselves if they want too, Mastodon is only the software; it's up to the user as for how to use it.

@Laurelai

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Jun 20, 2019

Gab is different, you do not understand the type of threat they represent.

@TheKinrar

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Jun 20, 2019

I do understand your concern, that's not my point. What I'm saying is that hardcoding instance blocks is a restriction of the users' freedom while they use Mastodon, and, most importantly, that it means that Mastodon devs are now supposed to decide wether or not instances should be blocked by default in the future which might lead to other blocks, other restrictions of freedom.

I'm not saying Gab is good, nor I'm saying it's bad (well, in fact, I am, as they're blocked on my instance, but I'm not saying it here), I'm just saying it's not Mastodon's role to block them.

@Laurelai

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Jun 20, 2019

Im saying its everyones responsibility to combat the threat these people represent.

@TheKinrar

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Jun 20, 2019

Then encourage everyone to block them

@Laurelai

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Jun 20, 2019

I am. As seen by this issue being opened. Im taking all possible avenues.

@dascritch

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 20, 2019

(reading this ticket, governments are preparing list of banned words to add in the source code, actively)

@Laurelai

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Jun 20, 2019

I opened a similar issue on glitch-social and florence. Both glitch and florence seem to be leaning in the direction of going for this idea. Ill probably approach pleroma and misskey too. And if you think blocking a known white supremacist terrorist group from the fedverse is the same as government censorship then you have lost the plot.

@TheKinrar

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Jun 20, 2019

not the same, but one allows discussion about the other in some way, at least

(as I said, one blocked instance = we can block. no blocks at all = we can't.
If we start blocking by default, it means it can be done again.)

@aeris

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 20, 2019

Please also blacklist any LGBT-related instances, because Saudi people consider them as illegal.
And any non communist political instances, because Chinese people consider them illegal too.

Welcome to the Fediverse Telescreen world…

@dascritch

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 20, 2019

Dear @Laurelai , I understand your fears. But you must understand that you're opening a pandora box.

What could decide to add someone in this black list and what exempt it ?

Here, in France, government is discussing about a « Loi anti cyber haine » (« law against cyber-hate »), which is becoming a really dangerous open bag for any kind of censorship. Imagine what Iran, Saudi Arabia, China or United States can impose to the whole internet.

@farlistener

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jun 20, 2019

@Laurelai I propose that if these instances are blocked by default, yours too, to balance the universe.
You want to harm open software, fine, you need to make a sacrifice.

I'm really against this idea ...

@TheKinrar TheKinrar closed this Jun 20, 2019

@nightpool

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Jun 20, 2019

I think @yipdw made a very good call by preemptively limiting the conversation on glitch-soc#1135 (comment) and I'll be doing the same here. Perdonallly, I think that client apps are the best place to add blocks for instances where the developers aren't comfortable with other people using their software. Hard-coded blocks in mastodon have several limitations client apps don't, and as ThibG has said, it's pretty difficult to achieve the level of isolation that we would desire from such a block (for statuses posted publicly, restricting public access is an unsolved problem).

that said, I think there's still value in this ticket and that we should consider it carefully before deciding one way or another.

one thing I do want to say is that adding a hard coded block is in no way restricting anyone's freedom—nothing about adding a hard-coded block changes that Mastodon is free software that anyone can modify as they wish. comparisons to government censorship are completely inappropriate. the question is only about whether such a block is effective and appropriate for the mastodon project to recommend.

@nightpool nightpool reopened this Jun 20, 2019

@tootsuite tootsuite locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 20, 2019

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
You can’t perform that action at this time.