Mastodon is similar in setup to Lemmy in that nobody owns it and anyone can run it. I am absolutely positive they are banned on tons of Mastodon servers and not banned on tons of others. If the server you are on is federated with even one server with one that isn't banned, you could potentially see their posts, at which point you can either report those posts to your and their admins, or block them yourself.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works -3 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

So the mastodon service supports Nazis.

nobody owns it and anyone can run it

They could have chosen a license that forbid usage for spreading hate. They put "free software" and "open source" above blocking hate speech.
They're providing software to Nazis, and I don't really see how that makes them better than providing a place to post.

[–] badgermurphy@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

There is no Mastodon service. Its an application anyone can download and run. I understand your frustration, but it seems like you're mad at the universe they exist in for its role in housing them.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

No, you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not the person you were replying to.
Mastodon is a piece of software. It has a license, just like bluesky or any other. You can put a clause in the license saying the software cannot be used for the dissemination of hate speech. The open source community has discussed this and decided it goes against the principles of free software and open source.

If you're mad at one and not the other, you're applying different standards because being part of the fediverse weighs more.

Personally I hold platforms to a different standard and so I'm neither mad at mastodon nor bluesky. I just think it's hypocritical to be mad at someone for publishing a fascists letter but not be mad at the person who gave the same fascist a printing press.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You can put a clause in the license saying the software cannot be used for the dissemination of hate speech. The open source community has discussed this and decided it goes against the principles of free software and open source.

Says who? How can you authoritatively say the open source community has decided something collectively on this subject? That categorically doesn't make sense on multiple different dimensions.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago

Says the fact that it's come up multiple times amongst a wide swath of the open source community, and look about you. Those licenses aren't used. One or two exist and have a vanishingly small usage level and a couple more I have been "in progress" for years.
The people who write most of the open source licenses have explanations for why it's not compatible.

Group behavior is a collective decision and a reflection of the group.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)