If you are gonna be close minded and disregard my attempts to address your criticisms as "noise" and fail to engage with any of the questions I have raised, which was a good faith attempt to explore the issue at hand and discover what we both believe then I'm afraid I would no longer like to continue the discussion.

Why not try and prove to yourself that you are reasonable person. Have a go at that.

Yes I am sure. The initial two replies characterise my take as nazi and conservative. They eqaute my perspective as inherently existing within a binary.

Codeberg is a left project in my eyes. Are you of a different opinion? It is an community based non-profit organisation which serves as an alternative for corporate based entities like github.

You initially replied with a tone which implied you were going to be the one to have the reasoned take on things but then take a ridiculing tone when I reply in good faith.

You are free to disagree but you don't have to be a dick.

Well, I am part of that community and although it is the majority sentiment it is not something that is shared by everyone.

When I criticize the left I am criticizing from within that group. If you read my comment again you will find it is the replies from others who frame things as a left-right binary. By being of the left and being critical of the left and having a dissenting opinion I am negating that binary.

I think this decision is poorly thought out and authoritarian and I do not like that in our communities.

It is my sentiment, feeling and experience of an increasing demand for ideological conformity, politics of vanity and authoritarian behaviour on the left.

I could do some research for you and provide examples to backup this belief.

Or rather, let us be reasonable. When I critic the left for authoritarianism do you find it to be heedless agitation? When I speak of narcissism and self-aggrandizing behaviour do you yourself see no such evidence of this?

That communities limit the content they want to host is obvious. It's whether it should be limited and what that says about that community.

Thank you for your opinion.

Original comment by me in the thread:

I’m so glad we’ve had this rising moral grandstanding authoritarianism on the left in the past 10 years.

It certainly has helped to protect the vulnerable and not merely served as egoistic vanity-based virtue signaling for a narcissistic and sycophantic minority.

/s

triggered a bunch of people, not a winge just defending myself against false accusations, calling out fascistic behavior.

One commenter decided to spread misinformation and falsehoods and the rest on the jumped on the band wagon.

And I think the behavior displayed is exemplary of my concern.

On the one hand I'm happy lemmy is gaining traction in the wider culture on the other hand it sucks to see Deutsche Bahn posting their propaganda here.

I don't feel so bad about taking research chemicals to get high when I was a teenager anymore.

I made a sarcastic comment and then defended myself against false accusations. It's that simple.

I defined what I consider authoritarian:

The in-group is people who belong to the prevailing ideological hegenomy within the left and the out-group is the suppression of differing points of view outside the hegemony with methods invoking ad-hominem, coercion, appeals to emotion and intimidation.

Am I wrong? Is it not appropriate bring up a wider discussion about the state of the left on a post about a code respository? I dunno.

You choosing to not to exchange with what I have written and instead use emotive language "good grief" because you felt like jumping on the bandwagon with others making false accusations of fascism goes against your own principles about "watering the term down".

Yes. Unlike my post, a sarcastic comment which triggered all the people I am referring to, who then proceeded to prove my point.

Look, I have not called anyone a fascist.

My comment was using this action by codeberg to highlight what I feel is growing authoritarianism within the left.

The in-group is people who belong to the prevailing ideological hegenomy within the left and the out-group is the suppression of differing points of view outside the hegemony with methods invoking ad-hominem, coercion, appeals to emotion and intimidation.

It is plain to see in this thread.

Was my comment hyperbole? Maybe. But it highlights a valid concern in my opinion and that it ironically evokes such clearly authoritarian reactions proves it was an appropriate criticism.

I bemoan the false equivalence of all cryptocurrency based code with fraudulent activity. And I see such lazy thinking as an act of vanity at the expense of tolerance.

You say in another comment where you refer to me that you find the situation of dissenting opinion immensely funny.

And here like in your other comment you mischaracterize me. You claim to be a democratic but then quite happily want to revoke voting from me because we disagree.

I do not support nazism or fascism. We are both left wing, we are probably broadly in ideological agreement but you make your false claim because its more comfortable for you to fetishize nazis everywhere and make an enemy of your own would-be ally instead of fostering and creating broad coalition on the left that would actually be capable of standing up to the far-right wing elements in our society.

And that is just sad.

I mean you are right I am just expressing my disappointment with Codeberg and prevailing sentiments on the left.

I think censorship or the blocking of illicit actitivy like fraudulent activity or pump and dump schemes is valid but this proposal has blanket banned an entire field of endeavor.

And I question if the point of it is truely about protecting people or defining in-groups and out-groups and promoting ideological conformism.

Maybe my sarcastic response is an overreaction as responses here seem to indicate but in my opinion its more telling that asking us to self reflect on what the contemporary left is evidently such a taboo.

I cannot speak for OP but you have intentionally mischaracterized my position on another matter instead of discussing and addressing the criticism leveled against Codeberg's decision here and broader culture of authoritarian behaviour happening within the left.

I am myself left wing, its a mischaracterization to say "knowingly, intentionally continue to fund neo-Nazis in Sweden". Because first of all, I didn't know. Secondly, if you read what I actually wrote I say I do not approve of the action by co-owner of Mullvad and that his actions to not represent the the entirety of the organization.

Furthermore, in your attempt at ad-hominem, you selectively cherry pick a nuance take on the Mullvad situation where I am rightfully concerned about the loss of a much needed force in the sphere of digital rights and online privacy. And then neglect to highlight a post I made before where I am critical of emerging far-right fascism and the neoliberalism that fuels it.

My initial critisicm of the left and the decision by Codeberg is something you are welcome to disagree with. But you can do so addressing the issue at hand and not resorting to misrepresentation and emotive language.

By acting bad faith you have successfully derailed the conversation as such that I have had to defend myself. I remind you of what Jean-Paul Sarte wrote regarding fascists:

They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

Don't claim to be an anti-fascist while employing the methodology of fascists.

And don't promote anti-intellectualism and use emotive language to try enforce ideological conformity on the left and claim you are not an authoritarian.

I am entitled to my dissenting opinion and in any healthy community it would be welcomed. Again you can disagree but your behaviour and words are toxic and only serve to fracture the left.

This ruling states that using a VPN to access content which is public domain in one jurisdiction but copyright protected in another is legal and not the responsibility of the VPN provider or the site providing the content.

But does it apply to activity by users on VPNs like torrenting of copyright protected material?

Doesn't matter if a majority imposes censorship, its still an authoritarian act. Its not worded to ban fraudulent activity, its worded to ban an entire categrory of software.

Guilt by association.

Have a nice day

I'm so glad we've had this rising moral grandstanding authortarianism on the left in the past 10 years.

It certainly has helped to protect the vulnerable and not merely served as egoistic vanity-based virtue signaling for a narcissistic and sycophantic minority.

/s

I didn't find this video that insightful. As some commenters pointed out his "liberal-fascism", liberalism for me and not for thee, is just fascism or applied in international sense colonialism.

Interestingly I find myself disagreeing with Umberto Eco with his second point about the characteristics of fascism "The rejection of modernism". Apparently he excluded rejection of technological development from this, but my understanding is that fascism is an enlightenment ideology and they would see themselves as rational and modern (more so than their socialist and liberal opponents).

I think the comment on tariffs equating it with fascism or authoritarianism falls flat. Because what is he saying exactly that the opening up of countries to global markets and neoliberalism is the sunny alternative?

It's too superficial for me and doesn't provide any analysis of how neoliberal forces created this kind of backlash on the right.

Also, I feel like fascism decorated in liberal democratic terms and hosted in liberal institutions is something likely to be created by centre-left and centre-right neoliberal parties. The far-right want to implement fascism by the destruction of the existing liberal regime.

I personally will continue to use Mullvad for the time being. What it represents as an institution and a force in the online privacy sphere outweighs one donation by an individual to a fringe political party.

I do think the statement by Mullvad is fair. The company is 50% owned by Daniel Berntsson and Fredrik Strömberg.

Strömberg has stated that he and others at Mullvad disagree and don't like what Berntsson has done. But what he did he did as a private individual and not in as a representative of Mullvad (although being a co-owner that is a difficult circle to square).

The Örebro Party's take on "remigration" is wild. I really wished it was just a populist party that wanted stricter immigration controls but to quote Örebro Party co-founder Markus Allard

"They will also be forced to leave, even if they are born in Sweden, because they have no natural connection to Sweden. They are not Swedish."

I can't find any direct source if Daniel Berntsson explicitly agrees with this stance. It would be pretty shocking coming from a self professed "libertarian anarchist" ... well not that shocking...

It's disappointing and hopefully the backlash will make Berntsson reconsider his position but I personally don't feel as justified as some others here in throwing Mullvad under the bus.