cross-posted from: https://lemmy.abnormalbeings.space/post/952648
TEXT VERSION: https://thelibre.news/trump-cuts-funding-to-foss-projects/
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.abnormalbeings.space/post/952648
TEXT VERSION: https://thelibre.news/trump-cuts-funding-to-foss-projects/
Oh No ! Leopards Ate My Face.
Better off in the long run.
@MalReynolds Are you saying F-Droid, TOR, Tails or Let’s Encrypt supported Trump? I’d like to read more about that.
How could you read it that way ? I’m saying eventually they were going to conflict with the interests of the US (oligarchs and techbros) and lose funding. Shocker, it happened under cheeto.
@MalReynolds Leopards eating faces implies that they voted for the Leopards. But ok, issue clarified, all good.
Yeah, I have a broader view of the phrase, which includes complacency (not actively working at alternatives) as well as just voting, seems most agree with you.
Having a broader view of a phrase just means you didn’t understand the phrase. It’s okay to admit that.
This is not an example of leopards eating someone’s face. Unless those projects threw their support behind Trump’s admin, and I have no reason to believe they did, this is simply falling victim to fascist idiots.
Valid point.
Uhh… these projects are the backbone of the free and modern web. How is less funding a good thing?
Not sure if this is meant here, but shockingly many people believe that “funding” something equals to “controlling” it.
@thingsiplay It does, if it turns into dependence. Look at Mozilla.
Mozilla was not controlled by Google.
Pretty much the definition of soft power, which an awful lot of politicians believe in.
For a good reason
Not the one you answered to, but I think I can understand the idea of US funding having been a toxic source of dependency, and it being better in the long run to get money elsewhere. That “elsewhere” is a good question, though.
Just me, personally, my dream would be an international fund, carried by the UN or maybe an independent NGO, that can get funding from both private and public funds, that prioritises free internet access the way the WHO prioritises health. But I think that’s still far off.
Isn’t the OTF already an NGO that can receive funding from different sources?
Kind of, I wouldn’t really call them an international organisation in the way I would be imagining, see how easy it was to cut their funding when national interests turned openly fascist. Their affiliation with the US government above more independent, international organisations meant, that they would support privacy and a free and open internet, as long as it helps dissidents in other, non-aligned countries, but quick to cut it, if it reaches their own doorsteps.
Yup, pretty much my intent, that and the insecurity it engenders, rather surprised by the reaction.
This is the crux of the problem when losing funding like this
the reaction makes sense; these organizations are modeled after for-profit corporations since that’s where most of its leaders come from and oriented towards simpler modes of funding like the american gov’t; this is effectively a disaster for this sort of posture and it’s hard from them to imagine any other form.
Not a good thing, just an inevitable one, as they conflict with the interests of the US (oligarchs and techbros).