I was wrong about Google and Facebook: there’s nothing wrong with them (so say we all)
It’s always difficult admitting you’re wrong. But sometimes you have to in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. So, today, I admit that I was wrong about Google, Facebook, & surveillance capitalism in general being toxic for our human rights and democracy … it simply cannot be true given how they are endorsed by some of the most well-respected organisations in the world.
@aral I have serious criticisms of Google and Facebook myself. However, I don't agree with your criticism of Conservancy/Copyleft Conf. Conservancy has actually lost a lot of money over the years because it has stuck to its principles when sponsors preferred that it do something different (eg drop copyleft enforcement). That's one reason they started doing community fundraising drives, because they wouldn't have had the money to keep going otherwise *because* they stuck to their principles.
@aral I certainly agree with criticisms of surveillance capitalist organizations. However there is another problem: the commons is frequently exploited by large corporations that take and take and take from FOSS and don't give back.
If a company is willing to give some money to support free software orgs, no strings attached other than their name appearing on the site, I think that's something we should encourage *more* of. Many companies are taking and not giving, and that sucks.
@aral I do agree that much FOSS *software* is working too hard to bend over backwards for proprietary software integration where decentralized tech integration should be preferred and prioritized however.
I have long advocated a middle-ground here:
**Whenever you compromise your values, APOLOGIZE for it**
Instead of insisting on absolute purity, we can accept that real-world trade-offs happen. But don't present it as normal business, ASK to be excused and explain the situation.
In this case, SFC etc. should have some qualifier every place they reference the Google or Microsoft sponsorships. Something like an *acknowledgement* that this is a compromise and link to a statement.
They can totally say something like: "We acknowledge that many practices of these companies go against the goals of Copyleft, and we recognize the concerns people have about the conflicts in our accepting their support as sponsors of our conference." and link to a longer statement about why they still felt the compromise was still the right decision.
I'm not asking anyone to deny anything. It's totally feasible to *admit* and *explain* when we make compromises.
But if you want #freedom to talk about something, you don't get money from people whose interests you could hurt.
You're nicely expressing the critique here. Conflicts-of-interest are serious.
I'm not myself arguing that the compromise in this case is the right decision. But both now and generally, I argue for a social norm where we expect apologies for *all* compromises of values. We can still disagree about which compromises are right or justified etc. Some compromises are just bad. But there needs to be room for compromise in general. Absolute purism is a dead-end
> But there needs to be room for
> compromise in general.
> Absolute purism is a dead-end.
I think that we agree on this.
Still, there should be a link between trust and intellectual honesty: if I don't state what I'm giving back for real, the social norm should still be to distrust me.
Otherwise we move from good sense to common sense to just reach indifference.
Controlling what people can think is the point of being the filter people use to access the noosphere.
It's like if you had #Google glasses always on already so that it can directly influence what you see.
I myself trusted Google a lot.
Years ago I even sent them a resume, and I know a couple of people there who are pretty good people.
But till the beginning of this year, with a seasoned #Google engineer removing my Copyright statements from Harvey without removing my code, ejected me out of my filter bubble.
Able of world wide scale #BrainWashing.
And while you might have the skill to see they are really so dangerous (and controlled by the most powerful military nation of the planet), I guess your first reaction reading these lines will be "hum... ok... Shamar is paranoid"
Guess why? ;-)
@wolftune @Shamar @cwebber This assumes that we take it at face value that Google, etc., are benevolent entities that would keep sponsoring these conferences/orgs even if they criticised them. That’s definitely how they want to be seen but my experience says otherwise. When (sponsor) Google had to follow my keynote at NextM, their representative was fuming and told the organisers to change the line up for the next event… https://mobile.twitter.com/aral/status/976738619527397379
@wolftune @Shamar @cwebber … New America fired Barry Lynn when his Open Markets criticised (New America sponsor) Google on antitrust grounds. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/us/politics/anne-marie-slaughter-new-america-google.html
More personally, Linda and I resigned from the Code Club board when we were told not to criticise (sponsor) Google: https://pando.com/2014/08/27/code-club-cofounder-resigns-after-being-ordered-not-to-criticize-google/
It’s all well and good to assume that these companies are benevolent and that their.m money comes without strings but it’s just not true.
social.coop is a cooperatively-run corner of the Fediverse. The instance is democratically governed by its members, who generally share an interest in the co-op model, but topics of discussion range widely.
Our instance is supported by sliding scale contributions of $1-10/mo made via Open Collective. You must have an active Open Collective account to apply for membership; you may set one up here