cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/72685299
I discovered this after upgrading our instance yesterday, which also upgraded all frontends to their latest versions as well. After I did, our Tesseract frontend stopped working and I noticed immediately as it’s been my primary for a while. Initially I thought it was an API version mismatch, but no, it was much worse.
Someone pointed out that the developer of the frontend added an explicit hidden and unmodifiably blacklist which includes any and all instances to the left of Kissinger. There’s a commit which also explains their specious reasoning about our instance specifically, as it seems we’ve been on their shit list for a bit longer than that.
This instance and its admin staff encourages identity politics, groupthink, mob mentality, and extremist solutions to societal problems. Users who advocate violence are not moderated so long as the admins agree with the target. Caution and critical thinking are advised when interacting with this instance or its users.
When you use tesseract to connect to one blacklisted such instance , you just get a message informing you that Tesseract is “incompatible with that instance” which leads one to think of a technical issue, like an API mismatch, rather than the dev being an opinionated coward.
Isn’t it funny how all the software developed by turbolibs, like Piefed and Tesseract, end up with hidden control mechanisms from developers who think they know better than everyone else? That they don’t just think they deserve to tell you what you should think, but they should manipulate you to think it? Isn’t it funny how libs go on about how bad it is to support lemmy due to the ideology of the devs behind it, and yet lemmy has 0 opinions as a software? It does make one think…
Anyway, I forked - it as one does - and disabled the blacklist, but since this is a massively ideologically compromised software, I’ll doubt I’ll keep this frontend up after Lemmy 1.0. I think we’ll bring up mlmym again now that someone’s maintaining it again.
No? I said I support using the state to suppress them. That can include killing them, but it does not necessitate it. The working classes should have full authority over the state, and be able to use it to forcibly appropriate property from the owning classes. Those that violently resist, the working classes should be able to respond in kind.
You have a clearly dishonest view of what I said. Are you imagining a state just killing landlords for fun? Why resort to violence when unnecessary?
Maybe I misunderstood you then. I reviewed what you said again, and you did just say state sponsored murder was a good thing, I must have added the mass in my head. I still vehemently disagree, but I attacked you for something you didn’t say. That’s my bad, I’ll not harass you about it again.
I have never said “state sponsored murder is a good thing.” I’d love to see a link, but either way, I guarantee it was a response in a similar context, stating that killing violent fascists and the like to protect the gains of socialism is a necessary measure. I never said “kill all owning classes,” such a dogmatic and reductive stance is wrong. You cannot kill your way to a collectivized economy, you have to develop into one. You still have to protect socialism, but making it state policy to kill all owning classes is a reductive take.
https://piefed.world/comment/3172127
I’d appreciate if you included the parent comment you responded to:
I perceived your comment as being in bad-faith, and responded curtly. Still, I never once said “kill all xyz,” I said force is necessary to protect the gains of socialism.