The Fedilab developer just admitted to acting in bad faith by removing the user agent identification from their client.

I can understand a browser changing the user agent to something else for compatibility reasons, but for a client to deliberately remove identification to evade the wishes of the servers they connect to?

That’s not something well-behaved clients usually do...

>The Fedilab developer just admitted to acting in bad faith by removing the user agent identification from their client.

"Just admitted", you're strong for manipulating 🙄

@fedilab how would you characterize removing the user agent explicitly for the reason so that your client can evade a ban?

If you would be consistent in your principles of allowing your app being used to access all content including hate speech, then why would you have an issue with servers exercising their free will and choosing to revoke access for your client?



^^ this is what I mean when I say that people argue in bad faith when it comes to white supremacists. If you argue for certain principles then it has to be applied consistently.


Principle: Applications have no business trying to control their users
Principle: Services have a legitimate interest in what users connect to them, but not in what applications they use. The API is an API.

It's why I shower Moxie Marlinspike with contempt for his threatening LibreSignal into oblivion and his claim that their client hs no right to connect to HIS server. It's as ridiculous as if Google were to attempt to block people from doing searches with Firefox.



Applications have no business controlling the content of their users except when it comes to abuse such as spam, harassment, hate speech etc.

(Moxie btw was right)

@szbalint As a disabled person who has a good deal of difficulty using Moxie's phone client, I don't really have your sympathy for his "My client or no client" attitude or the accompanying idea that I should either converse with people using the client he wants me to with difficulty and discomfort or not converse with them at all.

If Moxie wants to set rate-limits that apply to everyone whatever client they use, discovers his API is actually broken from a security standpoint and needs to change it, or any number of those other things, I can get behind that.

@trwnh @szbalint @azure I think Moxie has done a poor job of explaining exactly *why* he runs a closed network. Here's my understanding:

@mathew @szbalint @azure

1) if you can't talk to someone at all then security doesn't matter
2) moxie has reasons, but that doesn't make anything he does "right"

@mathew @szbalint @azure anyway moxie is a control freak and should not be used as a model for behavior. even then the application has no responsibility. the responsibility is on the app provider to not do business with known harmful parties. the app has freedom to do what it pleases, but no responsibility whatsoever (because it is not a person).

@trwnh @szbalint @azure Moxie's decisions are appropriate given his goals. If you have different goals then you should use a different product which supports your goals.

@mathew @szbalint @azure exactly. it's moxie's goals i take issue with. they are not "right".

@szbalint @fedilab Being an intolerant, judgmental bully is really helping your case there, buddy

Sign in to participate in the conversation

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