This goes to the core of the debate, I am in favor of giving users the ability to block anyone they want, even the ability to subscribe to and distribute block lists
However it is step to far to hardcode or build in unchangeable block lists into the very foundation of the service.
Developers need to empower users to make their own choices, not treat users like they were children
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
"The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0)."
The entire marketing of the fediverse software is freedom from censorship.
if you want to build "Authoritarianverse" and place yourself as emperor for life, then you are free do to do just be open with your marketing so people know to avoid your software
As I understand it, their main goal is escaping corporate control, and any freedom from censorship they provide is incidental.
See too Mastodon’s “server covenant”, which seeks to quarantine instances that allow hateful content: https://joinmastodon.org/covenant
Clearly that is a false statement if they are imposing their view of what "correct" speech is.
They both also license their code under GPL, even though they violate Freedom 0 of the core freedom model the GPL is designed to protect
The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
>> escaping corporate control
Which is doubly ironic since they have adopted the same exact policies that many are fleeing Big Tech to avoid. The Silicon Valley Authoritarian left Speech codes
> Publish anything you want: links, pictures, text, video.
You’re misinterpreting the meaning of freedom 0. Tusky and Mastodon comply with both the letter and the spirit:
> The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not forbidden or stopped from making it run. This has nothing to do with what functionality the program has, whether it is technically capable of functioning in any given environment, or whether it is useful for any particular computing activity.
> For example, if the code arbitrarily rejects certain meaningful inputs—or even fails unconditionally—that may make the program less useful, perhaps even totally useless, but it does not deny users the freedom to run the program, so it does not conflict with freedom 0. If the program is free, the users can overcome the loss of usefulness, because freedoms 1 and 3 permit users and communities to make and distribute modified versions without the arbitrary nuisance code.
Sure, Tusky complies with the letter of the definition; that doesn't make it moral
This is what Stallman said:
> If a free program has a malicious feature, other developers in the community will take it out, and you can use the corrected version. You can also run free application programs and tools on nonfree operating systems; this falls short of fully giving you freedom, but many users do it.
> This has nothing to do with what functionality the program has, whether it is technically capable of functioning in any given environment, or whether it is useful for any particular computing activity.
What part of your quote does Tusky violate? It's GPL3. Even if you consider that block list a malicious feature (I don't), you are allowed to take it out and distribute a "corrected" version.
When i first got into the IT world many decades ago it was largely libertarian, free culture was rampant and attempts to lock down peoples speech, and freedom was viewed very badly
Today people like you find anything and everything to not only justify your Authoritarianism and desire for control over others, you do so by attempting to gas light people in to thinking you are actually supporting freedom
Sorry I was there, I lived through the rise of the internet, I lived through the crypto wars, I saw the raise of Free Software, and Open source, I saw it all first hand... I know the dangers if the society you desire, but it seems history will need to repeat itself before people will learn
This trend in some circles to limit speech and thought will not turn out good for anyone, never in history has speech codes and thought police been a good thing for society, and I see no reason to believe that the so called "progressives" that are leading this new round of authoritarian policies will turn out any different.
It's less escaping the censored and restricted megacorp service to freedom or free speech anarchy and more you're able to build your own service that fulfills your own needs and own preferred blend of moderation vs free speech and that service can interact with others own instances with their own rules.
Same goes for the clients.