Civil rights groups: "perhaps the most dangerous surveillance technology ever developed". Stop selling it to governments.

Amazon: "That’s not our decision to make"

Your regular reminder:
Technology πŸ‘ is πŸ‘ not πŸ‘ neutral

bbc.com/news/technology-486346

Great tour by @greenpeace_gr@twitter.com volunteers to the Rainbow Warrior III. She is really beautiful πŸ’š

pixelfed.social/p/comzeradd/44

It's great to receive appreciation in the form of a recurring donation ;) Even the smallest amount helps us keep going.

liberapay.com/libreops/

@djsumdog blocking a domain or an account falls under "ignoring them". And I think that's xkcd' point. "Actively going against them", would mean that you take more direct action against their platform.

Thanks for the post, I'll read it more thoroughly. But I think there is a difference between infrastructure providers and online communities.

if you consider facism, "not that much of a problem", consider that it is because of your social status.

And if you then also consider acting against facism is actually facism you lost your mind to the far right, as those 2 thoughts are exclusionary to each other by logic. If you can't grasp it, read:

you say:

- facism is not a problem
- antifacism is facism and by that a problem

now repeat those sentenses after each other in any order you want.

New blog post: "Tech veganism" nolanlawson.com/2019/05/31/tec

Wherein I try to understand what makes a "tech vegan" (i.e. someone who avoids closed-source software and big tech companies, i.e. probably you), and whether there are parallels with real veganism.

@alexl sure, just skip straight to patronising. I won't counter-suggest, because it's probably too late.

@alexl and the point is that you can follow his argument, regardless if it's legal or not.

@alexl no, it's not. that the logical jump you make. legal framework doesn't necessarily frame an instance's tolerance on certain content.

@alexl Right.. because mainstream media is generally anti-state πŸ€¦β€β™‚οΈ

@alexl "admins personal political ideologies" == "instance terms and coc". so most instances actually do that. eg. most instances would block a nazi instance and not wait for the state authorities to intervene.

@alexl well, if you have to use juridical knowledge you are not exactly paying attention to what I'm saying.

@alexl because on the same time you say that there are state authorities in each country for those things.

Most mastodon instances have even people from different countries and in a sense they transcend borders.

@alexl Sure, but instances have a clear terms document that describe what's acceptable and what's not in each instance.

I perceive instances as small islands in the federation. Each own has its own rules and people are free to go to whatever island they want based on their preferences. I don't see this as a UX problem.

@alexl No, sorry. I'm not willing to delegate moderation to any state or legal system that was created through authority.

Mastodon instances have the right and the freedom to define their own code of conducts. Purism has the right to allow any form of speech (even the kind that advocates against freedom of speech), and any other instance has the right to block them if they find this attitude to be politically incompatible.

The echo chamber you find yourself in is called "liberal state".

Show more

Nikos Roussos's choices:

libretooth

a mastodon instance run by LibreOps