If you create tools that can be used maliciously against people without at least attempting to prevent misuse, you actually created a weapon.

Techbros try to sterilize the situation with their neutrality because that's what their FOSS ideology asks of them. Inaction is also political. FOSS is not a shield for you to protect yourself from social responsibility.

Platforming racists/facists by giving them access to your tools gives them space to hurt people with their ideas; making you complicit.

@o perhaps you should reflect on it further, or not, idc

@flowless what is a tech bro? This is the second time I've seen this term used on mastodon

this is a crazy viewpoint either way but i keep seeing this ridiculous sentiment supported. this makes Dennis Ritchie the most Nazi/Facist-complicit techbro of all time.

@keb I don't know what any of the words you said mean or imply

@flowless In the first sentence, I asked for the definition of the term "tech bro."

In the second sentence, I express my disbelief at the opinions in your original post, and mention that I see common sentiments on Mastodon often.

In my third sentence, I point to Dennis Ritchie, the creator of the C programming language, as someone who took zero action from preventing Nazis or fascists from using his tools or software.

@flowless yeah, and you should license against it too, or else fascists will just fork your code and remove whatever blocks you put in.

@thufie @flowless but then you can't do open source software at all anymore.
Because even when it's "licensed against it" you then have a new fulltime job in doing surveillance over the whole internet to ensure nobody forked it anyways and altered the code enough to make it not too obvious.
On the GNU project site there is that when you publish a software open source you can't guarantee that no "bad people" use it, so you can't make foss if you want to prevent them.

@thufie @flowless
"FOSS is not a shield for you to protect yourself from social responsibility." yeah it is a shield, because you don't have control for your source anymore when it is open.

But what you can do is to just not make the source open. Then you can control who can use it which also results in you being fully responsible for any security issue or bug + you could misuse your power over the user.

@thufie @flowless
I don't think there is a good compromise between these two cases. If so then someone other has to explain it to me how you can prevent bad people from using your source for bad stuff without getting a new fulltime job.

I don't want to say it's impossible but I can't imagine how it should be possible.

@chumii @flowless this seems hypocritical. There isn't "constant surveillance" looking for GPL violations and you know that requires the same kind of enforcement too (even trickier, because it often takes people reverse engineering something to spot it instead of spotting behavior enabling violence). In the same vein, warnings are sent to GPL violators to give them a chance to comply, because compliance first is ideal, and the NPL works the same way in practice in both cases.

These arguments are the same arguments as the ones used against the feasibility of the GPL, so it seems odd to say that these are the same reasons the NPL would "destroy open source" unless you're against the GPL.

@flowless @cute In general I like this take, but have never been able to resolve one aspect of it: What should someone who makes paper being doing to prevent fascists from using their paper to print flyers? Is there a level of genericness of tool that dilutes responsibility in some way? I've thought on this from time to time over the years and never came up with a framework for thinking about it that I felt hung together well.

*placing straw man on slippery slope*
*pushing straw man down hill*
Watch him gooooooooooooo!
*considering moral implications*

floss discourse, food mention Show more

floss discourse, food mention Show more

floss disc, food+prison mention Show more

re: floss disc, food+prison mention Show more

re: floss disc, food+prison mention Show more

@flowless At first, I thought you meant actual security software (nmap, metasploit etc). But labeling mastodon or pleroma as a weapon is nonsense.

Let me present an example: I run an XMPP server, and there is actually the option to set up a whitelist of servers. If I wanted, I could use this software to set up an absolutely walled garden where no bad guys could bother me. I don't, but there's the option.

There can be no way to limit FOSS use because you'd need an arbiter.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Social @ PV

Social is the primary social media platform for the forth coming fourth version of Play Vicious, a new initiative built to bring attention to the plethora of creative acts that don't get the shine they deserve.
For more details about the project and how to support, go here.