Back

@conservancy@mastodon.technology * We _must_ regulate them, even. #typo

@stevenroose @conservancy@mastodon.technology Not based on the events they sponsor. Based on the events/groups that will allow them to sponsor. HealthConf sponsored by Philip Morris. EnvironmentConf sponsored by Exxon Mobil., etc. If those events/groups have legitimacy, they end up legitimising those companies.

@aral @conservancy Another strange assumption. That events/groups filter their sponsors based on their merit. Sponsors are supposed to give you money in return for publicity. Period.
Having a company sponsor should *in no way* be considered a agreement with their actions.

@stevenroose @conservancy@mastodon.technology Yes, it’s a strange assumption that money is influence. So strange that a strange man called Lawrence Lessig coined the term “institutional corruption” to describe it and then, strangely, went on to briefly run for president in the US on this single issue to raise awareness about it.

Honestly, I’m baffled that otherwise intelligent people in our industry have such a hard time understanding corruption and legitimisation.

@aral @stevenroose @conservancy

deftly put

@jpf @conservancy@mastodon.technology Sadly, not extraordinary at all (it should be); you might even say it’s the norm (see Mozilla/Google, RightsCon/Google/Facebook, Amsterdam Privacy Week/Palantir/Google/Facebook, etc.)

@0xD @conservancy@mastodon.technology For the same reason I wouldn’t trust Greenpeace on the environment if it was sponsored by Exxon Mobil or, for that reason, why I don’t trust Mozilla on privacy and human rights when they get hundreds of millions of dollars from Google and other surveillance capitalists.

Integrity isn’t something you assume about an organisation, it’s something they demonstrate by not engaging in bullshit like this.

@bob @aral @conservancy

Indeed!

Money have strings attached.