Follow

I'm sympathetic to the idea that explicitly filtering an instance at the app level is damaging the functionality of the app for a non-functionality reason i.e. It's not the purpose of an app to do that unless the user specifically asks for it. But I'm not sympathetic to the moral stance that an app developer should serve users intending to commit hate speech or coordinate terrorist attacks or trade illegal pornography the same way they serve innocent users.

@nebula I think we'd be in a very different world if web browsers picked which web servers they would talk to though based on content.

If I was an app developer, I certainly wouldn't like... specifically fulfill feature requests or such from Gab users, but I don't see a lot of sense in actively blocking an app from being used with it.

Also, I imagine there will be workarounds. Someone will figure out making random domains/URLs which redirect to Gab's server or the like.

mentions child porn, nonspecific, sfw 

mentions child porn, nonspecific, sfw 

@ocdtrekkie
It's not simply "dislike," though, and that was my point. It's not simply that it's distasteful, but the content itself actively does harm by existing and being disseminated. It should be emphasized that the fact the browser carries it is an unfortunate side-effect of a "tool" and not actually the purpose of it. You don't fix it by breaking the tool, but by attacking the source.

@ocdtrekkie
@nebula
Well if people responsible for the Internet thought more about mitigating possible bad consequences of the Internet and its services (Facebook, www, etc). We'd be in a better place. And while browser blocking certain sites might be fishy, Mastodon clients are much more specialised. So yes authors have right to place any limits they want (facist instances are the free to fork and sideload their apps, but well doing illegal stuff shouldn't be easy)

@jacek @nebula I doubt sideloading will be required. (And they could sideload the Gab app already, presumably.)

But forking Masto clients and publishing them as Masto clients, without any sort of server blocking, will probably happen, and it's unlikely Apple or Google will delist them, since they're just clients for an Internet standard.

And as I said, I wouldn't be surprised to see domain forwarding or similar tricks used to defeat app developers trying to block Gab as well.

@ocdtrekkie
@nebula
We will see. On the other hand I totally see apple taking down Gab client just for virtue signalling.

@jacek @nebula If there's a "Gab client" sure. But if a Gab user posts up a Mastodon client (that happens to work with Gab, but doesn't mention it or have links to it), it'll probably be fine.

@ocdtrekkie
@nebula
We'll app stores are not known for consistent rule enforcement. I think that sometime ago some Hacker News cliebt was taken down for some idiocy like aurally containing a browser.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Plural Café

Plural Café is a community for plural systems and plural-friendly singlets alike, that hopes to foster a safe place for finding and interacting with other systems in the Mastodon fediverse.

If you are interested in signing up: please put whether you are a plural system or singlet in the "Why do you want to join" box. This is purely to ward off spam bots. If this is not answered, your request to join the instance will be rejected.