No, I don't. If it's about instances I'd understand it a bit more, even though I wouldn't entirely agree with that either (I'm a free speech stan), but this is a page listing Fediverse alternative software. The software is fine and relatively untainted from the intentions of the Lemmy devs from what I can tell (although that was not originally the case). They deserved to be criticized, but not censored from Fediverse articles listing alternatives to big tech platforms.

[–] haverholm@kbin.earth 3 points 3 weeks ago (17 children)

It's not "censorship" when somebody decides to omit a software from a curated list over the developers' horrible takes. See also Soapbox.

Edited to add: Free speech does not obligate anybody to boost or acknowledge subjects that they disagree with.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

over the developers’ horrible takes

Is that really what all this protest is over? Someone's 'horrible takes'?

[–] haverholm@kbin.earth 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Well, horrible genocide apology takes, TBF. I didn't mean to downplay the gravity of the points they bring up in the archived mastodon thread.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 2 points 2 weeks ago

Yea, but that kinda nails the pettyness of it, doesn't it? They don't even gain anything by having people adopt their software, nor do they suffer a loss by a boycott - and it's all because they have some questionable (to put it charitably) opinions about an entirely unrelated political issue.

The thing that gets me is that launching this diatribe over the developer's political opinions on an open sourced project that's built specifically so that no one group or person has control over the platform - that you have complete control over the instances you federate with - ends up looking an awful lot like protesting public libraries over providing access to 'woke' books.

load more comments (14 replies)

load more comments (17 replies)