Extremely disappointed in Omar Roth, the creator of Invidious.

Taking a neutral stance against hate speech is choosing a side. What a cop out.


I dig Invidious. I think it's a great solution for people that want to interact with YouTube and not get bombarded with non-sense.

However in this day and age, you have to make a stand against hate speech. You can't just hope it goes away or it deals with itself, b/cit won't. We see what happens when we give it space.

And let's be real. The only time the free speech argument is deployed is when it is in defense of hateful and violent bigots.

This is how hate spreads. When people do nothing.

Software might be neutral, but the people making it are not, so the idea it is possible to remain in the middle is complete bullshit.

As we've seen with mstdn, Purism and even masto main, unless you come down hard and consistently on hate speech, harassment and abuse, it will spread. Period.

Bigots exploit the alleged neutrality of people to spread their hate and violence.

I believe in free speech too. What I don't believe in is endless harassment and abuse.

It's very easy to do both.


Invidious represents the main issue in FOSS right now.

We can absolutely build better tools to deal with online harassment, unchecked hatefulness and violence. We absolutely have the means to make significant progress in his arena.

Unfortunately, what we're seeing is a lack of will and ethics to do so. What we're seeing is people who want to be viewed as intelligent making very unintelligent decisions that usually benefit bigots.

People are choosing to keep the web a shitty place.

Like I constantly say, we all make decisions everyday concerning what type of community we want to contribute too.

Invidious is making the choice to give space to bigotry, hate and violence when it does not have to.

Remember hate never operates in a vacuum. It is given space by people that simply do not care.

It's not magic.

@Are0h As someone who has a lot of influence over who gets hired by my employer, I find this to be an excellent reason to dig pretty deeply into discussions any candidate has participated in related to open source projects. If I were to see something like this from any candidate, I would make sure they didn't even get a phone screen, even if their actual code contributions would have otherwise been enough to let them skip the phone screen and come directly onsite.

@freakazoid I think not enough effort is put into discovering the ethics of a developer.

I often here about how work places become toxic, but no one talks about the hiring practices that allow garbage people to keep getting jobs.

@Are0h There's only so much you can do at interview time, but when someone is putting it out in public like this, that's a good chance to do some filtering to avoid the waste of time and damage to the culture of inadvertently hiring a toxic individual.

As for toxic individuals who have already been hired, I have no qualms about managing them out, and if their manager won't do it, pushing for their manager to be managed out.

@Are0h @freakazoid I think that's a good point, but I'm not sure of how to determine whether someone is a problem in an interview.

Any suggestions on specific questions or lines of questioning that would help to figure it out?

@ted @Are0h I can think of two main ways: choose your own adventure and deep dive. For choose your own adventure you pose specific scenarios and ask what they would do. I use a scenario with manager candidates where someone on the team points out that a large number of women have transferred out over some relatively short period of time.


@Are0h @ted For experienced candidates I ask them if they can come up with examples where there they disagreed with someone else and how they resolved it or felt it should have been resolved.

I also try to get people talking about things they didn't like about past jobs. If they badmouth former coworkers or complain about managers considering things other than technical merit, that's a clear case for a veto.

@Are0h Note that I don't care at all if it's about Dissenter or something else. The fact that they have made it clear that they are only willing to consider "technical" issues when deciding what to support in their project is plenty for me to not even consider them for a role.

I would also think twice about interviewing at any company that employed them.

@freakazoid Yeah, that's a deal breaker for me too.

That's making a choice to remain willfully ignorant. And that's just a coward's choice in this day and age of violent divisiveness.

@Are0h Incidentally, I noticed one of the commenters on there, "justagoodperson", appears to be an account created 21 days ago solely for the purpose of contributing to gab-ai-extension.

I say solely created for that purpose because they have email address privacy set up correctly, so they're not a github noob.

@Are0h Corporate and political influence does make the web more shitty too, tho...

@Are0h There's so many, whites included, who have little power over anything and they unjustly chastise themselves for not knowing how to make a difference. They mourn that they can't do more. Then there's these FOSS people who have a tiny bit of power to make a difference, and they make excuses to absolve themselves of doing anything.


the free software movement explicitly claims an ethical basis for the work. Individuals in the movement, being human as they are, can often get things very wrong, but at least the door is open to call us on it.

open source, and it's au courant post-open source successors, deliberately walks away from *explicit* ethical claims in favor of a squishier utilitarian or pragmatic, but implicit, ethic, an ethic of earnings and efficiency and expediency.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Social @ PV

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!