While that isn't false, defaults carry immense weight. Also, very few have the means to host at scale like Docker Hub; if the goal is to not just repeat the same mistake later, each project would have to host their own, or perhaps band together into smaller groups. And unfortunately, being a good programmer does not make you good at devops or sysadmin work, so now we need to involve more people with those skillsets.

To be clear, I'm totally in favor of this kind of fragmentation. I'm just also realistic about what it means.

We're supposed to be better than them. Countering their misinfo networks by creating our own misinfo networks isn't being better than them.

I think the limit should be pretty high, but I'm fine with, as an example, people who spread abject hatred being rejected by most parts of society. I think not spreading hatred against your fellows is an integral part of the social contract.

I am more so arguing that in the pursuit of not tolerating the intolerant, we just end up becoming intolerant ourselves

Intolerance of intolerance is not the same thing as intolerance of tolerance. The former stops when other forms of intolerance no longer exist; the latter stops when tolerance no longer exists.

But more specifically, defining and understanding what constitutes intolerance is a non-trivial challenge that is often ignored. Oftentimes, a person or view is labelled as intolerant when it does not see itself that way. Oftentimes, the reality is more nuanced.

All we can do is give it our best try. It's better than doing nothing at all out of fear that we can't get everything perfectly right all the time. Intolerance definitionally seeks to destroy tolerance; thus it follows that if we do nothing, tolerance will be entirely lost.

You can see this kind of discourse online all the time. You go to a left leaning forum and find them calling the other side fascists. You go to a right leaning forum and find them calling the other side fascists as well.

The good news is that you don't have to simply take people at their word when they say things. Humans have the unique capacity for judgement.

I'm trying to demonstrate that the paradox of tolerance isn't actually helpful when it comes to decreasing intolerance.

I don't agree, but even so, you haven't proposed an alternative yet.

Why not? Public institutions are supposed to serve the public's interests.

Good news, you have that freedom. But everybody else has the freedom to decide not to associate with you for it.

Wait, are you arguing with the concept that intolerance seeks to destroy tolerance?

Amoral isn't a virtue worth upholding. We should encourage good things and discourage bad things.

You're right, I didn't notice you were a different person.

Everything you mentioned has widespread environmental impact, particularly if people/corporations use those materials in bad faith.

There's no greater environmental impact if a person chooses to insulate their own house with asbestos. My point still stands; draw me a clear distinction why a store can sell an individual person tobacco but not asbestos despite the fact that we know both cause long term lung damage.

My entire post was warning against gesturing towards a vague power controlling everything because it leads to conspiracism. One major example of that conspiracism is antisemitism. I have literally no idea how you can read my comment and come back thinking I'm arguing in favor of antisemitism. Yes, the space laser thing was a jab at the infamous "Jewish space laser" conspiracy, and I was explicitly saying avoid that kind of thinking.

The problem with our society isn't that there's a nonspecific ruling class directly dictating everything. There doesn't need to be. We proletariat as a class are fractured instead of united. There's no need to rig elections or prevent us from voting because we don't act as a threat against power in the first place. The system amorally chugs along unimpeded as we go about our individual lives instead of acting together. Our daily compliance is what sustains it, and the system is designed to punish noncompliance automatically.

The scary truth isn't that there's a puppetmaster pulling our strings, it's that there's nobody at the wheel at all.

I have no idea who you are talking to. Did you respond to the right comment? None of this makes sense as a response to anything I just said.

The entire republican party is currently lockstep saying all trans folk are trying to corrupt, if not molest, children. They're promising national legislation to oppress and punish them if they win. Before them, it was Mexicans and Muslims. They always have a group of "others" to scapegoat, and given enough time and power they always eventually act on it.

"Never again" means we're supposed to recognize and stop this behavior before it can harm anybody, not wait until it's too late as we disingenuously quibble over definitions.