171–180 of 213 posts
I don't understand this sentiment at all. "We hate billionaires, but we need them to operate our servers because we don't want to"?
I don't know how someone could look at Dorsey/Musk/Bezos actions and still be interested in what they have to say. There's probably a lot to be learned from someone who worships money, assuming that your goal is to emulate them. However their lifestyle and ideology is inherently dangerous to workers and life on earth as we know it. So yeah I don't really care what they have to say beyond knowing how the enemy views t…
Wait until you hear about China.
I don't know how someone could look at Dorsey/Musk/Bezos actions and still be interested in what they have to say. There's probably a lot to be learned from someone who worships money, assuming that your goal is to emulate them. However their lifestyle and ideology is inherently dangerous to workers and life on earth as we know it. So yeah I don't really care what they have to say beyond knowing how the enemy views t…
It is exactly that. Americans think of themselves as temporarily poor and embarrassed millionaires.
> [...] peacefully prevent the talk from proceeding as scheduled. I am strongly opposed to this idea. We should not be burning books and should not be preventing talks from proceeding. See Tim Urban's book What's Our Problem?: A Self-Help Book for Societies for why blocking speakers is a bad idea. Tim's argument essentially is that it's okay to decide you don't want to see a speaker, it's also okay to decide if you a…
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…
> That feels like an very common envy-based position, trying to tear people down because they are better off. No, it's not because they are better off. It's because (a) to get control of that level of economic resources in this economy, you generally have to do something with many questionable aspects to it, despite its (potential) popularity and (b) you don't need to remain a billionaire or show signs of trying to i…
FOSDEM is a not-for-profit org. They run on sponsorships and donations. Many sponsors are what we would consider to be part of Big Evil Tech. The last year I was at the FOSDEM beer event, Google sponsored many rounds of beer, in addition to helping pay for the conference. All the money that goes into FOSDEM is invested in subsequent editions.
FOSDEM org gets money from the sponsored talk, but no one is required to attend it. If you don't like Dorsey or his talk, you don't have to attend it. Or better yet, you can attend it and ask critical questions.
> [...] peacefully prevent the talk from proceeding as scheduled. I am strongly opposed to this idea. We should not be burning books and should not be preventing talks from proceeding. See Tim Urban's book What's Our Problem?: A Self-Help Book for Societies for why blocking speakers is a bad idea. Tim's argument essentially is that it's okay to decide you don't want to see a speaker, it's also okay to decide if you a…
> (…) why blocking speakers is a bad idea. Tim's argument essentially (…) That didn’t explain anything. You just said “it’s OK to do X but not OK to do Y” with no supporting argument.
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.
You invoke violence by disrupting somebody elses rights. You force people to use violence/force to remove you in order to maintain the right to free speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it that interesting? I mean he likes anime porn? That's it or like is there actually some proof hes a pedophile? On the other hand that Stallman report... oof
Are you saying that liking loli porn (porn of animated children), to the point of moderating a community based around said porn, is less of a problem than the (very real, I agree) issues highlighted in the Stallman report? Both are super problematic, but being actively into porn that is actually banned in a lot of countries because of its links to pedophilia is even less defensible.
Is it wierd to me? Sure i don't get how somebody can be excited about that. But people have wierd kinks and things like wierd real life extreme abuse porn seems to me to be worse and its legal. Is there higher chance people that like animated porn like child pornography? For sure much higher. But it doesn't mean all of them are pedophiles. You know you become pedophile after you engage with that not just because of what your brain interprets as exciting.
I am all for canceling this guy after somebody has proof about him being pedophile but if that report was proof i think many people (especially extremely online people on hacker news) would be in exactly same water.