One of the maintainers added an inclusion statement onto the footer of the website and a few developers thought it was pushing an LGBT agenda so they quit. This was from a quick search, I’m sure there was more to it than that - one part was that some were mad they weren’t even consulted before it was added and misrepresented their views.
That inclusion statement seems very badly thought out and quite Western-centric. For many people in oppressive states who rely on censorship-resistant and privacy-guaranteeing software, being a dissident isn’t necessarily about defending minorities or trying to make the world a better place. It’s often about retreating into a private world with your fellows and trying to live your life as best you can under the circumstances. So, IMO it’s better not to specify any specific social-justice goals for projects like these.
I disagree, because I think in the definition of the word dissident it's not enough to oppose a system mentally. It needs to be challenged actively.
What you describe sounds more like what I would describe as society dropouts
In English, "dissident" has been commonly used for decades to describe opponents of a regime (usually the USSR or other Eastern Bloc regimes) whose activity has been limited to distributing underground literature, or organizing cultural events in the private sphere instead of in the state-controlled venues. Only a small minority of dissidents publicly challenged the regime.
Or not even agreeing. It has been fairly common for dissidents in the USSR and Putin’s Russia to express outright scorn for people who advocate for social justice, especially LGBT whom even dissidents might dislike. Social-justice advocates are seen as naive dreamers. Also, while people who support the regime are odious, those who actively work against it might be accused of allying with the country’s enemies.
As I said, the favoured course of action for some dissident communities is instead retreating into the private sphere and trying to live one’s best life there. I have heard that this is a common attitude among dissidents in China, too.
> the favoured course of action for some dissident communities is instead retreating
I'm not sure that this kind of passivity can properly be described as "dissidence". Surely dissidents are people who speak up, taking a risk with their own security?
At any rate, I don't want to quibble about semantics. If you disagree with your government, but aren't prepared to speak up, then you're at best getting in the way. Passivity is what authoritarian governments depend on, so passive "dissidents" are like collaborators.
That kind of passivity can most definitely be described as dissidence. Those Soviets who circulated literature through samizdat, who put on performances of disapproved modernist music or poetry in their own flats to a small circle of peers, etc. are commonly described as dissidents even when they never publicly challenged the authorities.
The claim that such dissidents are collaborators is, again, Western-centric. Dissidents can and have argued that the regime's internal contradictions will eventually undermine it, without them having to take actions that put themselves at risk or leave them open to accusations of aiding the enemy.
> GP spoke of people who retreat into what seems to be passive silence.
I said people who retreat into private words. Samizdat was a private world. Events held in people’s homes was private worlds. Writing non-conforming literature or music “for one’s desk drawer” was a private world. Modern dissidents using censorship-evading, privacy-guaranteeing software to enjoy community are in private worlds.
Calling such dissidents “part of the problem” is not helpful. There have been famous cases where Westerners’ demands for how dissidents should behave, actually pushed dissidents closer to the regime.
