Tusky, Gab 

Yeah so the whole gab thing from yesterday received way more comments then I can handle. Looks like most of them are positive though, thx

Tusky, Gab 

ok here are some FAQs

> will you block more domains? - The size of gab is pretty unique and I have no time to research smaller instances, so most likely no

> Is this censorship/against free speech etc? - No because A. hate against marginalised groups is no opinion B. gab can still be accessed by other means and Tusky can be forked and C. Tusky is no government, so it cannot take away your basic rights

Show thread
Follow

Tusky, Gab 

@ConnyDuck I do understand the sentiment, but I must reiterate my concerns about this making you responsible for content accessed through Tusky. I believe it's necessary for Tusky to just dumbly implement Mastodon APIs, without any consideration of which instance or what content, in order for you to not be legally responsible for what is accessed (like a web browser can't be sued for kiddie porn accessed through it).

re: Tusky, Gab 

@Matter FYI that notion is legally called "carrier protection" and it largely got thrown out the window with SESTA/FOSTA, though the cases about that haven't made much headway yet.

Ignoring that, those browsers can be removed from private app stores for not taking adequate steps against disallowing illegal behavior, even if a civil or legal suit wouldn't hold water, and I believe that's the main motivation I've seen from app developers who are considering or have blocked gab?

re: Tusky, Gab 

@emsenn @Matter My main motivator is that I hate the far right, white supremacy, and all it stands for, and I will do my utmost to make sure any work I do will not be used by them to further their goals.

Possible app store problems makes it more urgent, but I would do it even if app stores were perfectly fine with it.

But if they were, I might not want to be on those platforms in the first place.

re: Tusky, Gab 

@emsenn @Matter And anyway, even pre-amended, Section 230’s premise itself wasn’t “providers can do nothing and not be liable” but precisely that “providers can do some editorial things and yet still not be liable for what remains”. So, Matter doesn’t know what they are talking about in any event.

re: Tusky, Gab 

@bix if any filtering is applied,I can see Google come knocking and ask for Tusky (or others) to apply further blocking of other sites(maybe an anarchist or antifa instance, who knows?).If no filtering at all is applied,we could just say that the app is not concerned with such things and is just a dumb pipe, but that doesn't work if even one instance gets blocked.Not talking about a legal aspect,just concerning gplay etc.And I think gab should be blocked at instance level,not apps.

Tusky, Gab 

@Matter
The US law CDA Section 230 protects intermediaries even if they take moderation action, as long as they have not actively encouraged illegal conduct. I see no reason this isn't the same situation. If the app developer is aware of particular illegal conduct (and some hate speech is illegal) and filters it out, they cannot be held liable for use of the app to access other illegal content they were not aware of.
@ConnyDuck

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Fosstodon

Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.