Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No Billionares at FOSDEM

drewdevault.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 213 posts

Re: No Billionares at FOSDEM

#131

Post by disqard »

bo0tzz wrote: post #98
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #64

There are two things that don't sit right with me: 1. "the FOSS community shouldered the burden – both with our labor and our wallets – of a massive exodus onto our volunteer-operated servers" -- this implies that users actually using decentralized services is a burden, a bad thing. Or rather, that a) it would be much better if Twitter was better and people just continued using Twitter rather than FOSS platforms b) t…

> implying that having money in itself (and not a specific way of behaving) is wrong, unethical, and worthy of exclusion. Having money in the abstract is not. But being a billionaire is.

I think you are (rightly) pointing out that "quantity has its own quality".

As an analogy, this is similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit.

To GP: It's less "no one should have any mass". It's more "Billionaires are like Black Holes, and therefore should be avoided" -- yes, it is a value judgement; no, it's not a blanket statement about money.

Re: No Billionares at FOSDEM

#132

Post by airhangerf15 »

lolinder wrote: post #122
Shawnecy wrote: post #95

[flagged]

I'm one of the flaggers. This is just my opinion, I'm not speaking for the others, but: I flagged because the piece is poorly argued and mostly just spiteful. It starts off on a bad foot by implying that Dorsey chose to sell Twitter to Musk and made billions on the sale, both of which are false. Dorsey was forced to sell Twitter to Musk by the shareholders and the board. The shareholders profited, but Dorsey actually…

I don't understand why DeVault's website is still allowed on Orange Reddit. There are people who I really respect who write good, non-spiteful, intelligent pieces who are still shadow banned after 5+ years.

Re: No Billionares at FOSDEM

#133

Post by phoronixrly »

lolinder wrote: post #122
Shawnecy wrote: post #95

[flagged]

I'm one of the flaggers. This is just my opinion, I'm not speaking for the others, but: I flagged because the piece is poorly argued and mostly just spiteful. It starts off on a bad foot by implying that Dorsey chose to sell Twitter to Musk and made billions on the sale, both of which are false. Dorsey was forced to sell Twitter to Musk by the shareholders and the board. The shareholders profited, but Dorsey actually…

> If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it

Is this story spam or off-topic? What is the topic anyway? Is an article ever on topic if it's not one of Paul Graham's "essays"?

Re: No Billionares at FOSDEM

#134

Post by airhangerf15 »

zellyn wrote: post #53

To be fair (and I'm a big fan of Drew), it seems unlikely that Jack could have prevented the sale of Twitter to Musk. I'm part-way through the book “Character Limit: How Elon Musk Destroyed Twitter” by Kate Conger and Ryan Mac, and so far I can recommend it. It's not necessarily perfect writing (they do _not_ think highly of Jack, nor really any other tech-bros), but definitely informative. [Disclaimer: I have been a…

> I'm a big fan of Drew

You know he ran the Stallman hit piece, right? You know it was also discovered he was into a certain type of Japanese "art" involving the exact same child-involved things he criticized Stallman for right? (There's a website detailing it, but gets flagged/removed from here)

You should not be a fan of Drew. He is a terrible human being. I had a friend house him during a conference and found the man insufferable. He's a hypocrite and lolcow and no one should take anything he say seriously.

Re: No Billionares at FOSDEM

#135

Post by lolinder »

phoronixrly wrote: post #133
lolinder wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of the flaggers. This is just my opinion, I'm not speaking for the others, but: I flagged because the piece is poorly argued and mostly just spiteful. It starts off on a bad foot by implying that Dorsey chose to sell Twitter to Musk and made billions on the sale, both of which are false. Dorsey was forced to sell Twitter to Musk by the shareholders and the board. The shareholders profited, but Dorsey actually…

> If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it Is this story spam or off-topic? What is the topic anyway? Is an article ever on topic if it's not one of Paul Graham's "essays"?

You're taking that quote out of context to imply that the guideline says that's the only reason to flag. That's not what it's saying, it's saying that you shouldn't post comments complaining about spam—flag and move on.

There are plenty of other reasons to flag a story, and it being a spiteful piece devoid of any semblance of curiosity seems as good reason as any.

Re: No Billionares at FOSDEM

#136

Post by phoronixrly »

duxup wrote: post #84
einpoklum wrote: post #58

I would not approve of having a Billionaire keynote a FOSS conference based on his business ventures. However, the author says that billionaires should: > instead buy our respect by, say, donating 250 million dollars to NLNet > or the Sovereign Tech Fund and then, he would have our respect? Hmm. I was later reminded of this phrase when reading author also laments how > Dorsey sold Twitter to Elon Musk, selling the pl…

[flagged]

You see, there's the crux -- if one's a billionaire, one is obviously hoarding money as in not using any significant amount of it to the benefit of society and definitely not to help open-source which is the topic of FOSDEM. Otherwise one would not be a billionaire. By this logic, billionaires are off-topic to FOSDEM.

Thus what are billionaires doing speaking on FOSDEM?

Re: No Billionares at FOSDEM

#137

Post by baggy_trough »

lvass wrote: post #30
bogwog wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A protest like this is basically just IRL adblock. Do you not use ad blockers because of "free speech" ideology?

It's more like installing adblock in the computers of everyone in a room without asking for permission.

It's actually more like replacing the content of an article they are trying to read with an ad for yourself.

Re: No Billionares at FOSDEM

#139

Post by phkahler »

debo_ wrote: post #66
phkahler wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> He isn't boycotting. He is planning to peacefully protest, which I think is reasonable. No. He's planning to forcefully disrupt by blocking the stage. Narcissistic to the core: "My views and need for attention are more important than the other 8000 people here who may want to see this talk."

Disrupting access with your physical presence is not a use of force. Without peaceful protests, people will resort to violence more often.

>> Disrupting access with your physical presence is not a use of force.

When they try to move him, will that be use of force? When he tries to resist being moved will that not be forcibly staying?

Re: No Billionares at FOSDEM

#140

Post by phoronixrly »

lolinder wrote: post #135
phoronixrly wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it Is this story spam or off-topic? What is the topic anyway? Is an article ever on topic if it's not one of Paul Graham's "essays"?

You're taking that quote out of context to imply that the guideline says that's the only reason to flag. That's not what it's saying, it's saying that you shouldn't post comments complaining about spam—flag and move on. There are plenty of other reasons to flag a story, and it being a spiteful piece devoid of any semblance of curiosity seems as good reason as any.

Yes, apparently one of these reasons is "I didn't really like it". Good job!
Post reply on HN