tesseract/src/lib/blacklists.ts at main · asimons04/tesseract
github.com
Contribute to asimons04/tesseract development by creating an account on GitHub.

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.

  • GoatSynagogue@lemmy.worldEnglish
    21·
    4 hours ago

    The New York Times is a left wing publication through and through, what are you talking about?

    The BBC is centrist but left leaning. Definitely not right wing.

    • PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      2·
      28 minutes ago

      New York Times is precisely as left wing as liberalism. You’ve been raised to implicitly think of liberalism as the “normal amount of left”, and that is not accurate. That’s my assumption at any rate, because I was raised that way and carried around a similar misconception.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlEnglish
      54·
      4 hours ago

      Both are right-wing. Both uphold capitalism, imperialism, and Zionist genocide. Leftism begins at socialism.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlEnglish
          33·
          4 hours ago

          I’m not redefining it. Historically, leftism has been used to describe those who wish to advance to the next mode of production historically, ie those who are progressive, while rightism is to conserve or turn the clock backwards. BBC and NYT are both on the side of dying capitalism, wishing to drag the moribund body of capitalism, while leftists would be the socialists and communists. In the French revolution, capitalism was left, because it represented a movement beyond the monarchy and into capitalism.

          • GoatSynagogue@lemmy.worldEnglish
            41·
            4 hours ago

            You guys don’t seem to understand where the center is. Just because communism is far, far left, it doesn’t mean “slightly left” is “right”.

            • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              11·
              2 hours ago

              The “center” is a pretty worthless intangible the moment parameters are defined beyond “left” and “right”. It is interchangeably used as an arbitrary midpoint in policy and as a whole range of politics between, if not including, socialism and fascism.

              Determining how ‘far, far’ right you need to go to calibrate for the ‘far, far left’ stretches and constrains where anything falls.

              But let’s be real, centrism itself relies on being able to switch sides in that ‘slightly’ range.

            • 秦始皇帝@lemmy.mlEnglish
              21·
              3 hours ago

              No it is unfortunately you who does not understand what left right and centre means. The centre is those who hold up the status quo. The right are those who long for tradition and a return to the old. The left are those who strive for progress and the new. Liberals lie between upholding the status quo and wishing for a return to status quo of a few years ago when imperialism was less nakedly obvious. Liberals are thus centre-centre right.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlEnglish
              14·
              4 hours ago

              You don’t seem to get what makes something left vs. right. It’s about what direction they take us, in the direction of the status quo, being right wing, or if they take us forwards to socialism, being left wing. In the future, socialism will be right wing, and communism will be left wing. That’s just how it is, we must proceed forward exactly as much as we can without letting idealism cloud our judgement.