Technology

75959 readers

2860 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

L4s@hackingne.ws

388

Framework supporting far-right racists? (community.frame.work)

submitted 3 days ago by pegazz@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

420 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Title of the (concerning) thread on their community forum, not voluntary clickbait. Came across the thread thanks to a toot by @Khrys@mamot.fr (French speaking)

The gist of the issue raised by OP is that framework sponsors and promotes projects lead by known toxic and racists people (DHH among them).

I agree with the point made by the OP :

The “big tent” argument works fine if everyone plays by some basic civil rules of understanding. Stuff like code of conducts, moderation, anti-racism, surely those things we agree on? A big tent won’t work if you let in people that want to exterminate the others.

I'm disappointed in framework's answer so far

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] palordrolap@fedia.io -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You say it's a solved problem in one area as though it should be a solved problem elsewhere. That puts your comment on unsound footing.

As for the comparison you don't like, there are often only so many ways to write certain things in code. Some of those are invariably going to be very similar to that which was written by a bigot. That might be OK (like continued Hindu and Buddhist use of the swastika). Outright using that which was actually written by the bigot though?

People may say "please don't do that".

And there's the rub.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

You say it’s a solved problem in one area as though it should be a solved problem elsewhere

Yes. That is the point. This problem has already been solved. "Well we don't do that" is not an explanation of why it is suddenly a problem here: it is an admission of incompetence.

Don't get me wrong. There are very much reasons to consider whether that solution applies. That is not what you, and the other... moving on, are doing.

You instead continue to insist that we should... give money to known bigoted chuds because we still let the Hindus and the Buddhists use swastikas?

So how is this rub?

I tried to talk around it but I am just going to say it: You are being RIDICULOUSLY offensive by implying that people of (generally) Asian religions need to change their iconography because of a bunch of racist white people. You are being RIDICULOUSLY offensive by comparing that to giving chuds money because they wrote some code you might like.

If you can find a way to restructure your thoughts in ways that don't imply (generally) people of color need to bend over backwards before you'll consider anything else? We can have a conversation. Otherwise? Truth Social is that way.

And, because you seem to not understand commonly used rhetorical devices: Yes, that is me saying "please don't do that". Just with the words "you fucking" implicitly added on before a few more choice ones.

[–] palordrolap@fedia.io -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You are [...] implying that people of (generally) Asian religions need to change their iconography

That is not and was not my intent, and I was less sure of yours until just now. (This may be reading (in)comprehension on my part, to which I'll be happy to admit fault.)

So, let me make sure I'm understanding you. Are you saying that you think that any and all gains from bigoted or unethical sources should be thrown away and that we should have nothing to do with them?

I understand why people would be extremely uncomfortable with some of these and I even think that where we can, we should avoid them, but we can't get rid of everything.

If we must insist on everything then the whole of humanity needs to get in the sea because we're all products of humanity's inhumanity if you go back far enough. In many cases, it's not that far.

If we say "nothing" then we give way to terrible people and let them have free reign.

So tell me. Where is the line? I still think that's a fairly difficult question, even if you don't.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

So, let me make sure I’m understanding you. Are you saying that you think that any and all gains from bigoted or unethical sources should be thrown away and that we should have nothing to do with them?

No. As I said in the comment you clearly did not read while deciding to dismiss

The reality is that it is almost never one person saying something. And you can EASILY prioritize the other orgs that came to a similar decision. It is more about marketing and less about ideology, but people generally attribute calculus to Newton over anyone else even though it was largely an evolution and codification of existing concepts.

(...)

And if the reality is that it truly did come out of hatred and evil (e.g. a surprisingly small amount of medical research does indeed come out of the atrocities of WW2). You don’t tell someone “Hey, this medicine came from torturing and murdering Romani twins”. You give it to them, maybe think a bit if you are aware, and move on. And any historical discussion provides all the context and uses that context as a thought discussion.

As for your other comment

So tell me. Where is the line? I still think that’s a fairly difficult question, even if you don’t.

Well, in this case I think the line is pretty clear: Don't give money to nazis. Which is what Framework Corp is doing. This is not a case of choosing to not remove a package run by known hateful bigots from a package manager. It is a case of actively giving money to said bigots.