I’m not a fan of that argument. Basically, that article goes: I don’t like their definition of open source (fair) and it’s weird that the founder platforms a far right person (also fair), so you shouldn’t trust FUTO (weird conclusion).
I don’t like how we find some reason to discredit an org who does otherwise good things. Look at the reaction to Framework donating to projects run by unsavory prior people. None of the discussion is about the technical merits of the projects, but the association with people who have certain political ideas.
You’re not going to find the perfect mix of popular, ethical, and the “right” political ideology. As long as a project can be audited and forked, that’s good enough for me. Forking seems possible with FUTO projects, with the weird caveat that payment code can’t be removed. It’s not perfect, but at least their products are privacy respecting and largely drop in replacements for non-privacy respecting first party apps.
Could FUTO be better? Yeah, absolutely. Is the founder’s relationship with a far right activist concerning? Again, yes. Do either of those stop me from enjoying their software? No, I believe in enough of their mission that I think supporting them sends the right message: software source should be available and devs should be paid. The rest of the nonsense doesn’t really impact that.
I feel the same about Framework. Could they do a better job selecting projects to donate to? Yes. Does that change the fact that their hardware is easily repairable in a market dominated by unrepairable slop? No.
At the end of the day, I have no problem supporting projects that align 90% with my priorities, even if the last 10% is lightyears away.
The problem isn’t that FUTO platforms an out and proud self proclaimed fascist in a vacuum.
The problem is the close association FUTO has with an out and proud self-proclaimed fascist while selling itself with a libertarian mission statement. Fascism and libertarianism are fundamentally incompatible ideologies on the far opposite ends of the spectrum. The idea that this contradiction doesn’t hurt the reputability of the organization is absurd.
If you think I’m worried about the ethical purity of the founders of an investment firm, you are mistaken.
Fascism and libertarianism are fundamentally incompatible ideologies on the far opposite ends of the spectrum.
Thank you! So many I talk to seem to argue that they’re related.
related rant
There is a libertarian -> fascist pipeline, but it’s mostly because both are fringe and fascists seem to start of thinking they’re merely fringe, but then quickly realize their true colors when they disagree so much with libertarians. This mostly seems to be from anarcho-capitalists who believe their socially conservative views should be enforced, moving them up the authoritarian spectrum.
Case in point, Trump was booed at the Libertarian Party convention, Penn Jillette was outspoken against Trump on Bill Maher in the first term, and “libertarian” conservatives Rand Paul and Thomas Massie criticizing Trump.
The idea that this contradiction doesn’t hurt the reputability of the organization is absurd.
Isn’t part of their mission that the reputation shouldn’t matter?
FUTO is all about disrupting centralization. You can dislike FUTO but like the work they do and the projects they support. The goal isn’t to make good versions of existing apps, but to make credible alternatives to existing apps, thus helping break the monopoly.
Isn’t part of their mission that the reputation shouldn’t matter?
Not at all, at least when it comes to their organization and its investments. Their donations to OSS are one thing, but FUTO controls the name and brand of their direct investments like GrayJay and Immich. This makes FUTO a brand and separating a brand from its reputation isn’t something that can be done.
They themselves have put a huge emphasis on their reputation in terms of their OSS donations as well, often at the expense of transparency and the sovereignty of the projects they’re “supporting”, which is actually what the original post we’re commenting on is about. They were caught slipping donations to individual maintainers of projects and not the projects themselves in order to avoid project rules about institutional donors, and then they plastered the name and logo of these projects on their website without permission.
FUTO is an investment company like any other, only with a mission statement of “Don’t worry, we’re one of the good ones, primarily due to INSERT BELIEFS”. Then they act in a way in flagrant contradiction of those beliefs.
Anybody who feels uneasy over this behavior is 100% justified. Anyone’s who’s lived through Apple’s “Monopoly busting underdog” or Google’s “free and open internet for all, don’t be evil” eras doubly so.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
I’m not a fan of that argument. Basically, that article goes: I don’t like their definition of open source (fair) and it’s weird that the founder platforms a far right person (also fair), so you shouldn’t trust FUTO (weird conclusion).
I don’t like how we find some reason to discredit an org who does otherwise good things. Look at the reaction to Framework donating to projects run by unsavory prior people. None of the discussion is about the technical merits of the projects, but the association with people who have certain political ideas.
You’re not going to find the perfect mix of popular, ethical, and the “right” political ideology. As long as a project can be audited and forked, that’s good enough for me. Forking seems possible with FUTO projects, with the weird caveat that payment code can’t be removed. It’s not perfect, but at least their products are privacy respecting and largely drop in replacements for non-privacy respecting first party apps.
Could FUTO be better? Yeah, absolutely. Is the founder’s relationship with a far right activist concerning? Again, yes. Do either of those stop me from enjoying their software? No, I believe in enough of their mission that I think supporting them sends the right message: software source should be available and devs should be paid. The rest of the nonsense doesn’t really impact that.
I feel the same about Framework. Could they do a better job selecting projects to donate to? Yes. Does that change the fact that their hardware is easily repairable in a market dominated by unrepairable slop? No.
At the end of the day, I have no problem supporting projects that align 90% with my priorities, even if the last 10% is lightyears away.
EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 2 months ago
The problem isn’t that FUTO platforms an out and proud self proclaimed fascist in a vacuum.
The problem is the close association FUTO has with an out and proud self-proclaimed fascist while selling itself with a libertarian mission statement. Fascism and libertarianism are fundamentally incompatible ideologies on the far opposite ends of the spectrum. The idea that this contradiction doesn’t hurt the reputability of the organization is absurd.
If you think I’m worried about the ethical purity of the founders of an investment firm, you are mistaken.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
Thank you! So many I talk to seem to argue that they’re related.
related rant
There is a libertarian -> fascist pipeline, but it’s mostly because both are fringe and fascists seem to start of thinking they’re merely fringe, but then quickly realize their true colors when they disagree so much with libertarians. This mostly seems to be from anarcho-capitalists who believe their socially conservative views should be enforced, moving them up the authoritarian spectrum. Case in point, Trump was booed at the Libertarian Party convention, Penn Jillette was outspoken against Trump on Bill Maher in the first term, and “libertarian” conservatives Rand Paul and Thomas Massie criticizing Trump.
Isn’t part of their mission that the reputation shouldn’t matter?
FUTO is all about disrupting centralization. You can dislike FUTO but like the work they do and the projects they support. The goal isn’t to make good versions of existing apps, but to make credible alternatives to existing apps, thus helping break the monopoly.
EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Not at all, at least when it comes to their organization and its investments. Their donations to OSS are one thing, but FUTO controls the name and brand of their direct investments like GrayJay and Immich. This makes FUTO a brand and separating a brand from its reputation isn’t something that can be done.
They themselves have put a huge emphasis on their reputation in terms of their OSS donations as well, often at the expense of transparency and the sovereignty of the projects they’re “supporting”, which is actually what the original post we’re commenting on is about. They were caught slipping donations to individual maintainers of projects and not the projects themselves in order to avoid project rules about institutional donors, and then they plastered the name and logo of these projects on their website without permission.
FUTO is an investment company like any other, only with a mission statement of “Don’t worry, we’re one of the good ones, primarily due to INSERT BELIEFS”. Then they act in a way in flagrant contradiction of those beliefs.
Anybody who feels uneasy over this behavior is 100% justified. Anyone’s who’s lived through Apple’s “Monopoly busting underdog” or Google’s “free and open internet for all, don’t be evil” eras doubly so.