So what if it’s there? What’s the actual problem with it being listed there?
Furthermore, the more developers (such as their admin) who feel welcome in the project and can act in a constructive way, the better the code gets. Their admin made a post saying they would upstream any useful features they develop (although I haven’t checked to see if they did).
You make arguments for collaborating with Nazis here. I don’t feel comfortable with that. Would you argue the same positions if it was a “pedophile-friendly” or outright pro-pedophile instance? I really ask you to question your beliefs here.
I think there is a distinction. It’s not a ‘nazi instance’, it’s an instance with a couple of nazis using it and tolerated by it. The site ideology is best characterized as “US Libertarian”, the point being that the admin isn’t a Nazi, and their “pro-[personal] freedom” beliefs don’t conflict with the software project and its goal, even if they conflict with me. They can constructively collaborate for mutual benefit. We both hate “big tech” and want an alternative.
A ‘Nazi instance’ and/or a ‘pedophile instance’ is a grayer area cut off, as their goals are more antagonistic and promoting harm by nature rather than incidentally. That’s where I see the benefits of collaboration less worth it and would have no issue rejecting them. And I recall the admins here saying something a little similar, that fascist instances wouldn’t be advertized there.
It isn’t a comfortable decision, but I am able to put aside ideals to work against a massive common enemy. When I read “workers of the world, unite”, I realize it didn’t say “workers who I like, unite”. If a liberal or a US libertarian wants to join an environmental protest or action, good. If collaboration is a pragmatically effective way towards improving conditions and reaching goals, my idealism of purity isn’t helpful. Small FOSS projects need all the help they can get against a multi-national capitalist-funded website worth multiple billion dollars.
I’m not saying they aren’t revolting or abhorrent or wrong. Of course they are. What I meant (and admittedly poorly worded) was that’s where I draw the boundary of where their beliefs will make me refuse to cooperate for mutual benefit.
You make arguments for collaborating with Nazis here. I don’t feel comfortable with that. Would you argue the same positions if it was a “pedophile-friendly” or outright pro-pedophile instance? I really ask you to question your beliefs here.
I think there is a distinction. It’s not a ‘nazi instance’, it’s an instance with a couple of nazis using it and tolerated by it. The site ideology is best characterized as “US Libertarian”, the point being that the admin isn’t a Nazi, and their “pro-[personal] freedom” beliefs don’t conflict with the software project and its goal, even if they conflict with me. They can constructively collaborate for mutual benefit. We both hate “big tech” and want an alternative.
A ‘Nazi instance’ and/or a ‘pedophile instance’ is a
grayer areacut off, as their goals are more antagonistic and promoting harm by nature rather than incidentally. That’s where I see the benefits of collaboration less worth it and would have no issue rejecting them. And I recall the admins here saying something a little similar, that fascist instances wouldn’t be advertized there.It isn’t a comfortable decision, but I am able to put aside ideals to work against a massive common enemy. When I read “workers of the world, unite”, I realize it didn’t say “workers who I like, unite”. If a liberal or a US libertarian wants to join an environmental protest or action, good. If collaboration is a pragmatically effective way towards improving conditions and reaching goals, my idealism of purity isn’t helpful. Small FOSS projects need all the help they can get against a multi-national capitalist-funded website worth multiple billion dollars.
WTF, at some point you have to stand up against shit that is way wrong, and those types of instances are waaaaaay past the gray area.
I’m not saying they aren’t revolting or abhorrent or wrong. Of course they are. What I meant (and admittedly poorly worded) was that’s where I draw the boundary of where their beliefs will make me refuse to cooperate for mutual benefit.
Oh, thanks for clarifying.