@oshwm@mastodon.social @Shamar @cwebber @aral

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apology

There is *nothing* about apologizing that implies an action is *necessarily* the wrong decision. There are TONS of cases in life in which the right decision involves a compromise *and* an apology, which means an explanation, a justification, and an acknowledgement of the problems and harms the compromise involves.

You have no basis to assume that anyone compromising is "happy" to compromise. That's a condescending way to think.

@wolftune @oshwm @cwebber

This is a good point too, bmand maybe that this is what @conservancy will do, actually.

They would be careful to recognise the issues about #SurveillanceCapitalism (sure that few would find the apology on #Google search) maybe with a direct response to @aral, but they won't, under any circumstance acknowledge that Google presence at #CopyleftConf would inhibit free speech there... they simply cannot.

Follow

@Shamar

I can be quite pessimistic, but I don't think this is so hopeless a case. People can and should acknowledge conflicts-of-interest.

@conservancy could very well admit that Google presence and sponsorship **does** present a conflict-of-interest.

Although *avoiding* conflicts-of-interest is *preferred*, the next-best step to reducing their influence is to *acknowledge* them…

@oshwm@mastodon.social @cwebber @conservancy @aral

@wolftune @conservancy @oshwm @cwebber @aral

I don't know.
In abstract, I would agree.
But really: we are talking about Google.

They would influence the CopyleftConf even from the outside! Imagine what they can do inside!

It's really the single things they cannot afford: a strong copyleft with a wide reach that force them to free their services.

Think if someone propose to adopt the #HackingLicense as #GPLv4!
Must be Unthinkable!

@Shamar @conservancy @oshwm@mastodon.social @cwebber @aral

Right, Google has influence here no matter what… so what is the harm of taking their money and having them "sponsor"? They don't get actual inside decision-making, but they *do* get conflict-of-interest positioning and the PR of being associated. And it's precisely *those* things that can be at least *partly* mediated by public apology, especially one that is right there tied to the sponsor listing.

@wolftune @oshwm @cwebber @aral

> what's the harm of having them as sponsor?

Do you mean that #Google is not much good at #marketing optimization? :-D

I'm not in the #Ads business, but it's naive to think they would spend money on certain Ads if there is no reason to: it's their job to optimise these things!

It's naive to believe that @conservancy won't be "influenced" by Google's money for the speakers' selection, for example.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
social.coop

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.

If you are interested in joining our community, please review our Bylaws and Code of Conduct. If you agree with them, you may apply for membership on our instance via this link

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