Hi, Lemmy! So I made two mistakes. But I’d like to inform Lemmy, that there is a free speech version of the Lemmy code being used to throw racial slurs around. That instance is called goatpen.co I advise you not to go there, as you will come across racial slurs on the front page.

So my first mistake was asking what people on discussions.app like to use for different social networks. One instance, as mentioned above was goatpen.co. My curiousity got the better of me, and I went to check it out. That was my second mistake. That place is a cesspool.

That’s all I wanted to say. Someone or some company is using lemmy’s code to host a lemmy-clone and make it a cesspool.

  • nutomic@lemmy.ml
    29·
    3 years ago

    Lemmy is open source, meaning that anyone can use it for whatever purpose they like. Realistically there is nothing we can do against that. The sooner we accept this reality, the better.

    In my opinion, the main goal of Lemmy as a project is to challenge proprietary social media like Reddit. That wont be achievable if we try to exclude anyone from using Lemmy. Of course that doesnt mean that we have to agree with their opinions, and block tools exist exactly for this reason.

    Also, I think if these extremists leave Reddit, that could eventually lead to their deradicalization. Reddit has no real incentive to deradicalize them, because more users and more activity means more ad money for them. But fediverse instances are usually run by volunteers in their free time, who have less incentive to permit such toxicity.

    • Vegafjord eo@lemmy.ml
      7·
      3 years ago

      Exactly! Algorithms ends up favouring polarization for the sake of polarization. Decentralized social infrastructures takes away this destructive element of social infrastructures and that alone will have a positive effect.

      • handvat@lemmy.ml
        7·
        3 years ago

        Just like a kitchen knife can be used by murderers does not mean that the kitchen knife manufacturer should actively monitor who is buying their knifes and go after the ones with bad intentions in my opinion. In the same way, I don’t think free software should be licensed under such an ethical open source license.

        First of all, it’s just very hard to enforce I’d imagine. Would people who do not care about respecting human rights to begin with even care about such a license? You’re not stopping “evil” by making up rules that “evil” people don’t follow almost by definition. At least the license is more clear about what is considered as acceptable and what not unlike the infamous “The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil” clause, for which I have to give it some credit.

        Everything you can make can be used for wrong things and I suppose you’ll have to accept that you’ll never have full control over that. The only thing that can stop something to be used by people with bad intentions is to never create it in the first place.

        Besides, I´d rather have my enemy use open source software instead of closed source software. If they use open source software, it’s easier to get a grasp on what they’re capable of.

        For software like Lemmy with federation, I’d just say to block those from federating to your own instances and stop giving those instances attention. As long as the flagship instances that federate with each other keep up a positive attitude, I would just ignore those extremist people’s instances

        • jhghjb (he/they)@lemmy.ml
          111·
          3 years ago

          Just like a kitchen knife can be used by murderers does not mean that the kitchen knife manufacturer should actively monitor who is buying their knifes and go after the ones with bad intentions in my opinion

          wrong

          I’d just say to block those from federating to your own instances and stop giving those instances attention

          that humanizes them, they’ll feel like “i’m not allowed there but at least i can exist”, which is a very dangerous precedent

          • Nasst@lemmy.ml
            41·
            3 years ago

            Please tell me you’re a troll.

            “At least I can exist” being “dangerous precedent” is low key advocating for genocide, btw.

          • Thann@lemmy.ml
            1·
            3 years ago

            Can you explain how we could practically ban kitchen knives from being bought by murders? Also, have you seen minority report?

        • poVoq@lemmy.ml
          4·
          3 years ago

          This video is crap, he doesn’t even make a logical argument against “ethical software”.

          I also disagree with the idea behind “ethical software” because it is a bit like DRM, i.e. it has the potential to hurt the honest people that follow licenses, but those “unethical” people will laugh about it and use the software anyways.

        • ᗪᗩᗰᑎ@lemmy.ml
          1·
          3 years ago

          Completely disagree with the video, pick any example and I can counter it logically.

          If I make a hammer and my “usage license” states it can’t be used to threaten or intimidate others, is that unethical? If I make software and say you can only use it if you don’t threaten or intimidate others, is that unethical?

          I’m not sure I see whats wrong with an ethical license. It’s not about “changing others” as the video you linked states multiple times, its about not enabling hate groups to leverage tools/resources for evil.

          Edit: I don’t know who that guy in the video is but he’s projecting A LOT. Claiming the “ethical software” devs are “damaged broken people” - You take this man seriously?

          • jhghjb (he/they)@lemmy.ml
            11·
            3 years ago

            distrotube is an alt-right free software extremist cryptofascist youtuber that frequently attacks Coraline Ada Ehmke, a trans woman that founded the Ethical Source organization, he’s the worst of the worst

      • slacktoid@lemmy.ml
        11·
        3 years ago

        I have an issue with the ethical open source license, this is irrespective of my stance on free software, which is being ethical is ambiguous, it depends on the reader or interpreter as to what ethical is.

        For example I would consider being anti racist ethical but someone else could interpret being anti racist as racist ( or however they victimize themselves )

        That ambiguity, that my stupid ass could come up with off the cuff, is why its a bad license to use.