All,
Thank you for your considered opinions thus far. We have various
developers who have written defending free speech: we've had others
who have expressed various reservations with one aspect or other of
the status quo.
There's been a grudging consensus that this is *hard*. It's very hard
indeed to draw good conclusions as to what to do when everyone agrees
that something could be done and disagrees with what that should be.
Notably, Sam Hartman and Branden Robinson have pointed up flaws with
the existing categorisations and with a blanket removal based on
preference. It's also noticeable that this largely comes down to consideration of fortunes in English - almost nothing has been said
about other fortunes files or other languages, though Sam talked
about cultural perceptions.
A serious suggestion: it is not necessary for Debian to package
fortune files at all.
The single collection we have is largely a random collection from BSD
of 1995 vintage, itself representative of one Unix site in 1995 or
earlier.
The upstream Github repository is potentially only one of many
disparate sites on the 'Net and the English language collection
doesn't reflect the languages of Debian users worldwide.
PyPi has a fortunes-mod equivalent to read fortunes files: it
doesn't necessarily include strfile but it will handle pre-existing
fortune files. It should be open to anybody to make their own
fortunes files - just as anyone can make a mix of their own music on
their favourite music player.
If Debian doesn't distribute fortune files but instead provides the
means for users to make/download their own choice, nothing is lost.
Debian is not responsible for maintaining any file content, whether questionable or unobjectionable depending on viewpoint, and we lose
the burden of translation, maintenance and policing of content.
This also means that anyone who wishes can add the *missing* content requested in the bugs over years into their own files at their own
risk.
Your thoughts, again, please.
"Andrew" == Andrew M A Cater <amacater@einval.com> writes:
On 2022-11-23 at 13:06, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
A serious suggestion: it is not necessary for Debian to package
fortune files at all.
I find this suggestion demotivating and discouraging.
The single collection we have is largely a random collection from BSD
of 1995 vintage, itself representative of one Unix site in 1995 or
earlier.
I believe that this statement is inaccurate. There are parts of the collection which are Debian-specific (the earliest of which, per the changelog, were added in 1999), and others which have been added far
more recently than 1995 (there have been what seem like substantive
additions at least as recently as 2006).
The way the Debian packaging splits the collection into various files,
which I understand is not necessarily done upstream, can also be valuable.
The upstream Github repository is potentially only one of many
disparate sites on the 'Net and the English language collection
doesn't reflect the languages of Debian users worldwide.
Can you point to the repository you're referencing?
I wanted to check that repository to see whether it had the
Debian-specific parts of the collection, but since I can't find it, I
can't verify that before sending this.
The only repository URLs I find in the package metadata are the
Vcs-Browser and Vcs-Git URLs from 'apt-cache showsrc fortunes-off'
(which shows the information for the fortune-mod source package), and
those are under anonscm.debian.org.
/usr/share/doc/fortune-mod/README.gz lists several URLs, at least one of which appears to be a repository, but it isn't on GitHub and leads to a
404.
The files under /usr/share/doc/fortunes*/ don't seem to list any URLs at
all - except for one in changelog.Debian.gz, which dates from 1998 and
is about the addition of the 'perl' fortunes file.
The only upstream I can find referenced is the references in changelog.debian.gz to "Pascal Hakim", but no apparent place to find
whatever upstream that person might host seems to be mentioned.
PyPi has a fortunes-mod equivalent to read fortunes files: it
doesn't necessarily include strfile but it will handle pre-existing
fortune files. It should be open to anybody to make their own
fortunes files - just as anyone can make a mix of their own music on
their favourite music player.
If Debian doesn't distribute fortune files but instead provides the
means for users to make/download their own choice, nothing is lost.
Debian is not responsible for maintaining any file content, whether questionable or unobjectionable depending on viewpoint, and we lose
the burden of translation, maintenance and policing of content.
I sharply disagree that nothing is lost, but I don't seem to have the emotional energy to try to explain why without becoming argumentative
and probably just making things worse overall. (I have held back a draft which makes the attempt, but which I suspect distinctly fails.)
This also means that anyone who wishes can add the *missing* content requested in the bugs over years into their own files at their own
risk.
Your thoughts, again, please.
I am reasonably certain that this would just lead to far fewer people bothering to make use of the fortunes database(s) at all, thereby
creating a self-fulfilling prophecy about how irrelevant this is in the modern world.
From my perspective, this whole discussion looks like someone whom I've respected coming in and proposing to take away one of the small things
I somewhat like having around, and that taking-away happening almost immediately despite the existence of pushback over it, and then that
person reacting to the pushback by proposing to take away a *bigger*
thing that I even *more* like having around. I imagine it's not hard to
see how that could be upsetting or demotivating.
--
The Wanderer
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
If Debian doesn't distribute fortune files but instead provides the means
for users to make/download their own choice, nothing is lost. Debian is
not responsible for maintaining any file content, whether questionable
or unobjectionable depending on viewpoint, and we lose the burden of translation, maintenance and policing of content.
On 2022-11-23 at 13:06, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
Thank you for your considered opinions thus far. We have various
developers who have written defending free speech: we've had others
who have expressed various reservations with one aspect or other of
the status quo.
There's been a grudging consensus that this is *hard*.
Notably, Sam Hartman and Branden Robinson have pointed up flaws with
the existing categorisations and with a blanket removal based on preference. It's also noticeable that this largely comes down to consideration of fortunes in English - almost nothing has been said
about other fortunes files or other languages, though Sam talked
about cultural perceptions.
A serious suggestion: it is not necessary for Debian to package
fortune files at all.
I find this suggestion demotivating and discouraging.
I believe that this statement is inaccurate. There are parts of the collection which are Debian-specific (the earliest of which, per the changelog, were added in 1999), and others which have been added far
more recently than 1995 (there have been what seem like substantive
additions at least as recently as 2006).
The way the Debian packaging splits the collection into various files,
which I understand is not necessarily done upstream, can also be
valuable.
The upstream Github repository is potentially only one of many
disparate sites on the 'Net and the English language collection
doesn't reflect the languages of Debian users worldwide.
If Debian doesn't distribute fortune files but instead provides the
means for users to make/download their own choice, nothing is lost.
Debian is not responsible for maintaining any file content, whether questionable or unobjectionable depending on viewpoint, and we lose
the burden of translation, maintenance and policing of content.
I am reasonably certain that this would just lead to far fewer people bothering to make use of the fortunes database(s) at all, thereby
creating a self-fulfilling prophecy about how irrelevant this is in
the modern world.
From my perspective, this whole discussion looks like someone whom
I've respected coming in and proposing to take away one of the small
things I somewhat like having around, and that taking-away happening
almost immediately despite the existence of pushback over it, and then
that person reacting to the pushback by proposing to take away a
*bigger* thing that I even *more* like having around. I imagine it's
not hard to see how that could be upsetting or demotivating.
It is not necessary, but as I discussed in my long message about
removing software from Debian, removing creative content from Debian
has a chilling effect.
On Wed, 2022-11-23 at 12:34 -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
It is not necessary, but as I discussed in my long message about
removing software from Debian, removing creative content from
Debian has a chilling effect.
I would very much prefer explicit sexual content over Nazi symbols.
So let me make a suggestion:
If we insist on keeping Nazi symbolics in Debian, let's at least
also add explicit quotes from descriptions of Hitler + Blondi sexual adventures (which I'm sure must exist on the internet), various form
of sexual abuse (there is enough fictional content to quote) and more
in the fortune-off package or elsewhere.
Or are explicit sexual references so bad that Nazi symbols are okay
for freedom of speech, but sexual references not?
In a related question: should we accept packages that link to, say,
the Stormfront web site in user-facing material or source code?
(That's not really hypothetical: I believe we have at least one
package referencing a page including racism and Holocaust denial.)
What about software greeting the user with a friendly "Sieg Heil"
("not illegal in all juristictions" / "in every jurisdiction in the
world" was used as an argument earlier in the thread...)?
And for the "chilling effect": Debian makes it fairly easy to add
additional software sources; it's not like ecosystems where one or few providers have a near monopoly like platform App stores, credit card companies, Twitter, Amazon, ... which use their power to remove content
they don't like. And that is despite providers like Twitter, Github and
so on even having legal protections for third-party content which
Debian would not fall under, i.e., they do more control while having
less legal risks (AFAIU).
"Ansgar" == Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> writes:
Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
A serious suggestion: it is not necessary for Debian to package
fortune files at all.
I absolutely disagree with that.
The fortune package is completely nonfunctional without any fortune
files. True, I could download fortune files from anywhere on the
internet, and even make my own. But that isn't what I've learned to
expect from Debian.
When I install a Debian package, I expect it to function out of the
box, at least for a reasonable core subset of its full
functionality. I don't expect to have to search the web for
additional files in order to make it work *at all*.
That would be like packaging into Debian a game engine without
providing any game data. For example, a driving game without any
race tracks, or without any cars. Would you ever do that?
A serious suggestion: it is not necessary for Debian to package fortune filesat all.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 300 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 30:52:14 |
Calls: | 6,707 |
Files: | 12,239 |
Messages: | 5,353,038 |