Let me just be more explicit: if your software cannot be used by nazis then your software is not free software.
This is not the correct place to fight hate speech. Block the instances. Report hate speech to the authorities. Settle it using the existing legal frameworks to do so, and if they are insufficient, then write to your lawmakers.
But if you support free software, it is not the place to address this issue, by definition.
@sir @patrick Just because someone is able to break though a window, doesn't mean closing the door is useless. It raises the bar, makes it more serious, stops the bottom 95% of lazy people who would steal from an open house.
Physical safety of actual people is more important than adhering to a made up license. We should change the license if it means protecting ourselves.
@sir @patrick This thread goes into more detail: https://mastodon.social/@mister_monster/102293953948561002
@deltaidea @patrick how will adding a "nazis can't use this" clause to your software protect people's "physical safety?" Nazis are going to use your software even if you tell them not to. And if you think an anti-nazi clause is going to be defendable in court, I have some bad news for you. So if you fail to alienate nazis with an anti-nazi clause, and you succeed in alienating free software enthusiasts (because your software isn't), then what have you really accomplished other than a moral platitude?
Note I'm not extending this to the Tusky discussion, but specifically refuting your points about dropping/changing free software licenses because they don't exclude nazis
social.coop is a cooperatively-run corner of the Fediverse. The instance is democratically governed by its members, who generally share an interest in the co-op model, but topics of discussion range widely.
Our instance is supported by sliding scale contributions of $1-10/mo made via Open Collective. You must have an active Open Collective account to apply for membership; you may set one up here