The dubvee guy made something the way he wanted it and shared it with others. If someone doesn’t like the way he did it they can fork it or use another front end. Not everyone likes the same things and that’s okay.
Absolutely. The problem wasn’t so much that he did it as it was that he forced it on a bunch of people and against a bunch of people with no consistent reasoning and while making it very difficult to find out what he did and how to get around it.
As I’ve seen elsewhere, if his goal was to reduce toxicity with his front-end he would have advertised what he was doing instead of being caught after the fact.
Oh right, and then doing the whole crime after getting caught and dragged while providing no evidence for his numerous accusations.
But who did he force it on? No one can (should) support him attempting to ddos db0 on his way out but is uncommented code or a less than exhaustive readme force? Is it violence by omission?
He forced it on any user and admin that used his front-end. People would be livid if Google started blocking websites in Chrome without consistent reasoning or warning to their users, whereas being up front about it allows for users to opt in or out of their own will with knowledge of what’s happening.
I think alphabet is a weird example to use for your opt in vs opt out analogy but the point is taken. That doesn’t change the fact that the list was available in published, clear (not obfuscated) code. Does the maintainer of a project have a duty to warn about their political leanings or weird social peccadillos? Was there any point that a user or admin performing their due diligence via code review would be unable to see that information?
The maintainer has a duty to publicly note any changes they make so that their users are aware and can consent to continue using the platform with said changes.
Edit: Also putting the burden on a user to be tech savvy enough to discover changes made should also be something made aware to the users. In addition, a user did audit the code and found out what the changes were and got railroaded as a result (db0)…
Commit 22326: added </foo/> to hidden blacklist
No different in action that all the major companies and governments putting in backdoor stuff for various purposes. The only saving grace is that it is readable code here, but is the fact it wasn’t found early on the fault the person who wrote it, or the community that didn’t see it?
Would people have used it if it was commented and documented on its purpose? That should tell you something. And if you say yes, that should tell you something as well on how much you want to defend this.
All the drama and stuff beyond this was wrong. But this is core of open source, to make sure code is valid and honest and to call out bugs and maliciousness. Are the people who found and reported it responsible for others’ actions after they were pissed about it? Of course not. Doesn’t make things beyond dropping the use of it okay, but hey, consequences. Maybe don’t do things behind people’s back.
I’m not sure anyone did anything wrong except AP when he attempted to ddos db0. I certainly would not blame someone for doing their due diligence and posting their results or think they should be to blame for the actions of others (in response to your last paragraph.) I’ve been in the open source community a long time and I’ve always hated the dog piles that come after someone wrongs the group. There is something about the FOSS community that attracts people who think they know better than others. This makes the transgressions bolder and the response nastier than would otherwise be necessary.
Sure he can. And others are free to criticise him for it.
But that does not give him the right to DDOS those servers.
Yeah, I think that’s a separate issue that I can’t generate a consistent defense for. I’d like to stick to the facts and circumstances that make the strongest case for my side of this argument.
Just because he can doesn’t mean he should
There is no universal arbiter of who should do what. I’m sure at least one person would think you shouldn’t do something you do.
There is no universal arbiter of who should do what.
Yes I am literally an anarchist, I am not trying to be said universal arbiter, nor am I ever.
I’m sure at least one person would think you shouldn’t do something you do.
Well then they’re free to disagree with me. They might even come down here and leave a comment 😱
Of course not, but all the moralizing and celebration of this guy getting dragged and cancelled is fucked. Just because we can doesn’t mean we should.
Yeah but I actually can argue that we should here.
There should be some negative consequences for DDOSing dbzer0 at a minimum. There should be some negative consequences for releasing software, gratis or otherwise, with an opt-out hidden centralized blacklist. Being made fun of for a few days is a perfectly reasonable and proportional consequence of tricking people into using malware. In a few days time, we’ll forget about Patrick and his malware, and hopefully he can move on with his life.
I hope so too. But I agree with you “Vox populi, vox dei.”
How is it “fucked”? He offered no apology, was underhanded and believed he knew what was best for everyone, locked comments so no one could respond, and doubled down. Then, cherry on top, DDoS’d.
If he was such a good guy, why did he work so hard to hide his own acts of censorship?
OP never said anyone was a good guy; only that he could develop his front end the way he wanted.
“Liking things” is fine.
Trying to defraud the community means they’re an asshole.
Why are you defending them?
Does someone have to be a good guy to make his own frontend, offer it freely, and explain it to nobody?
No, plenty of assholes distribute malware hidden in useful apps just like AdmiralPatrick.
And they publish their unobfuscated code publicly for all to see.The thing that really ties the malware community together is their love of open sourcing their projects.Edit: if there was a blocklist fetched that could not be seen in the published code my stance on this point is demonstrably wrong footed.
No there was a live downloaded block list not in git.
That was, indeed, the problem.
It’s as they say, “freedom of speech, not of consequence.”
Just as much as AP had the “right” (not really*), everyone has their right to respond with criticism. And, AP has the right to face any and all legal consequences for their actions.
* no one has the right to violate a users right to know, and no one has a right to DDoS another entity.
I’m pretty sure committing a felony isn’t something that’s allowed on a FOSS project.
I’m glad to see another topic about this.
AdmiralPatrick covered in beans is the heat death of Lemmy.
I believe that people have decided to use another front end. That was the result.
Wellll, as someone that caught some shit for criticizing how people behaved in response to his fuckery, you might think I’d agree. I don’t.
Now, my hot take is that the initial problem wasn’t that he made a front end that included a block list. I’m fine with that, though I would be dubious of a single person deciding what was on said list no matter what else was involved.
The problem was it taking extra effort to even know it was there, much less see what was on it. Seriously, had everything been fully transparent up front it would come down to freedom of choice in developing it, and whether or not it would be used by any given instance.
Shit, anyone with any sense runs filters on apps that have them available, we block users, communities and instances. Of course a front end that gives extra ability to block things would be okay. That’s not what it was. It was explicitly opt-out, with obscured content.
Other than a handful of people that would whine about anything, the thrust of the complaints is the underhandedness of it.
Me? I would hope that every instance he had accounts on would ban them, and any future ones. That’s it, end of where I think it should go.
The way he carried on after being called out on it didn’t exactly paint him in a good light, either.
Not at all! Even where he had a point he broke it off by going full batshit. Doesn’t excuse others for also being assholes, but damn did he screw up. And then the attempted ddos thing? The fediverse is well rid of him.
Including the ddos attack?
Freedom of speech only works if it’s mutual. You’re free to say or make whatever work you want, but others are free to criticize what you say or make. This is how free societies tamp down on anti-social beliefs without resorting to forced government censorship and criminal penalties.
Criticism is an essential and necessary component of free speech. Sometimes people really do have abhorrent ideas that need to be dealt with. Either they need to be outlawed or they need to be vehemently opposed by the speech of others.
Consider an example: the folks that try to advocate for pedophile’s rights, folks who literally want to make adult/child sexual relationships legal. There are people who actually want to do that. But that’s also an idea so dangerous that we can’t let it spread around society unchecked. In more restrictive times, they would just hang anyone who proposed such a thing. But we have freedom of speech. It’s perfectly legal to stand on the street corner with a sign encouraging people to legalize child rape. The law won’t prevent you from doing that, but social pressure probably will. If you did that, the cops won’t arrest you, but you could find yourself shunned by all your friends and family, fired by your employer, and made a pariah by your neighbors.
Shame and criticism are how free societies police dangerous speech and ideas. Freedom of speech does not mean that abhorrent ideas go unchecked. It just means that abhorrent ideas have to be defeated in the marketplace of ideas, rather than being squashed by the state. You’re complaining about freedom of speech working exactly how it was designed.
I’m not arguing against freedom of speech. I think people should be nicer to other people not that people should be forced to. I’m happy to have my preference for kindness to be defeated in the marketplace of ideas.
Niceness is not achieved through secret blacklists and DDOS attacks.
Seriously dude. Touch grass.
He sure can … and did. Then quit!
