That's a very simplistic way of looking at the world. It turns out that things are frequently more complicated than absolutist rules allow for, and the world isn't a series of black and white with bright lines between them. Most people are actually very much okay with "Thou shalt not kill" being quite a bit more nuanced in reality, because it turns out most real-world moral questions are a little more complicated than single questions.

>Most people are actually very much okay with "Thou shalt not kill"

I don't think that's true. Most people are very vengeful and do not hold that view.

>It turns out that things are frequently more complicated than absolutist rules allow for

imo "absolutist" is mostly used pejoratively. It's dissonance to believe both "People should be able to express themselves however they way" and "Racists should be ostracized." The logical consequence of the second is to disallow racists to speak. It might be OK according to your moral compass, but that's antithesis to free speech and more akin to "people should be able to express themselves if what they say is something I allow."

> If your morals don't hold up when pushed to their limits

I think you're missing the point here that their morals aren't your morals and they can be entirely self-consistent and do what they're doing if they don't share your exact priorities. They obviously prioritize other concerns above freedom of speech absolutism and they aren't hiding that, thus remaining entirely consistent within their frame of reference.

I don't doubt they have their own morals, but these same people say they hold free speech as moral. The whole point of free speech is to allow for speech you find reprehensible. If not, what's the point?

> The whole point of free speech is to allow for speech you find reprehensible

No one is stopping Gab from speaking.

FDroid is just refusing to amplify their speech.

Since when did "free speech" == "freedom to force other people to publish my speech"?

But you know what, here's an idea: I have a sign I want to put on your lawn. I'm afraid it's an incredibly offensive sign and you and your neighbours might not like it. But I wanna put it on your lawn anyway.

Judging by your comments here, I assume you're totally cool with that, right? I mean, according to you, denying my request to put my incredibly offensive lawn sign in front of your house would be an abridgement of my freedom of speech, right?

But my lawn is not a platform. And even then, FDroid is a small enough platform that they should be allowed to do whatever they want. But then it's OK to point out the perceived hypocrisy in having a free software platform that censors apps they disagree with.

Free software is not really about free speech, but usually both philosophies are held together since they are somewhat related.

> But my lawn is not a platform.

Sure it is. It's a platform of one.

Or are you now saying these rights kinda depend? If so, what's the threshold? What makes your lawn special? Does it need to be a particularly big lawn? Do you need to have control of a lot of different lawns? I'm really confused. You seemed so certain that free speech was an absolute right, and that I can force others to amplify my speech, but now here you are suggesting there may be caveats...

> Free software is not really about free speech, but usually both philosophies are held together since they are somewhat related.

According to you. I certainly don't see them as being connected whatsoever.

Maybe your real problem is you and FDroid see the purpose of open source and free software differently.

I think you're being disingenuous, I don't use my lawn to distribute other people's apps/signs, it's not its purpose, and I don't advertise it as such.

Also:

>FDroid is a small enough platform that they should be allowed to do whatever they want. But then it's OK to point out the perceived hypocrisy in having a free software platform that censors apps they disagree with.

>I think you're being disingenuous, I don't use my lawn to distribute other people's apps/signs, it's not its purpose, and I don't advertise it as such.

That's irrelevant, at least under US law. If your daughter sells lemonade on that lawn, is it more of a platform? Can I then post signs all over your lawn about the dangers of lemonade or citrus?

Of course not. Because on your private property, you exercise your own free speech rights by allowing/disallowing what ever you choose.

Why should it be any different on F-Droid's private property? Do the people who own F-Droid have less free speech rights than you do? If you believe so, please explain your reasoning, as I don't see the difference.

> I don't use my lawn to distribute other people's apps/signs, it's not its purpose, and I don't advertise it as such.

And I suppose somewhere FDroid advertises itself as an open, censorship-free site for app distribution with no caveats or restrictions?

If so, please, point me to your evidence.

If it's just because "but they claim to value free software", see my reply (which included ninja edits): free software != free speech. No, they are not in fact related in any way. One can be supportive of free software without being an absolutist regarding freedom of expression.

Of course, that's understandable confusion. Free (as in no cost), free (as in I can control my own systems and products), and free (as in I can speak without government censorship) are all very different uses of the word "free", and I can see how folks might get them mixed up.

>If it's just because "but they claim to value free software", see my reply (which included ninja edits): free software != free speech.

I agree with you on this. The reason I believe they're somewhat related is that free software ensures users always have access to a software and can modify it if they disagree with the author. The spirit of that I think concedes that users should be allowed to use the software whoever they are/whatever they say/etc.

Now of course free software doesn't require you to provide them with the platform to run the software, but in spirit it definitely enables a discrimination-free permission to use it. EDIT: So having a platform deny access when it values such spirit is somewhat disagreeable.

"free software ensures users always have access to a software and can modify it if they disagree with the author."

IMO this is a really terrible reason to use free software/open source, and not a positive point in its favor. Forking is a really costly process and leads to fragmentation and most of the time is unnecessary. To me the main benefit of open source is that it leads to a global collaboration and cooperation, and it gives new avenues for people to be able to agree with each other. From what I've seen, projects where the maintainers are just disagreeable all the time usually don't even tend to get off the ground at all.

> So having a platform deny access when it values such spirit is somewhat disagreeable.

If Android required a platform for software distribution, I might agree, but Gab can (and does) post their APK right on their website. So Gab is experiencing no curtailment of their speech rights by FDroid refusing to traffick in their speech, nor are the users experiencing any curtailment in their right to use their device, or the software, as they see fit.

You'd have more of a leg to stand on if this was about iOS and the Apple store, which doesn't allow for any kind of sideloading.

But Android? Sorry, I have no sympathy and I see no hypocrisy in FDroid's actions.

They don't think that's the point, which is what matters. They clearly have limits to free speech that you don't have because they are not free speech absolutists (like most people) while you are a free speech absolutist. They probably draw a limit at speech that they consider harmful[1], as most people do. If most people didn't have these limits, then harassment, death threats and so on would all be generally acceptable and legal, but they aren't.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

>If your morals don't hold up when pushed to their limits, it's that you have a poor understanding of what your morals are.

No, that's not the case. Morals don't have to be black and white because the world isn't black and white.

Nuance is the name of the game in morality. The world is shades of gray, everything has more context than you can imagine. Morals isn't mathmatics, you can't put it on an equation and say "X always equals Y in all situations"

Here's an example. Stealing is wrong. But what if you're stealing bread because that's the only way you can get food, and you're stealing it from Jeff Bezos who was just going to let it rot. Is that still wrong? Even if it has no value to Jeff B? Even if it means your death if you don't?

Context and nuance is what makes us all human.

>Stealing is wrong. But what if you're stealing bread because that's the only way you can get food, and you're stealing it from Jeff Bezos who was just going to let it rot. Is that still wrong? Even if it has no value to Jeff B? Even if it means your death if you don't?

Which is a misunderstanding of what you really mean by "stealing is wrong."

In that example, Bezos doesn't care about the sandwish, so perhaps you mean "stealing is wrong if it deprives someone of something they cherish." Or maybe you hold your life above your morals, but then you have to recognize what you're doing is amoral.