copyleft conf just clarified that sponsors are not endorsements including of things like proprietary software so fyi to folks like @wolftune who said they'd like to hear that

Follow

@cwebber @wolftune “Sponsorship is not endorsement” is about as doublethink as you can get.

Money / Sponsors / Surveillance capitalism / pragmatic 

Money / Sponsors / Surveillance capitalism / pragmatic 

Money / Sponsors / Surveillance capitalism / pragmatic 

Money / Sponsors / Surveillance capitalism / pragmatic 

Money / Sponsors / Surveillance capitalism / pragmatic 

Money / Sponsors / Surveillance capitalism / pragmatic 

Money / Sponsors / Surveillance capitalism / pragmatic 

Money / Sponsors / Surveillance capitalism / pragmatic 

Money / Sponsors / Surveillance capitalism / pragmatic 

Money / Sponsors / Surveillance capitalism / pragmatic 

Money / Sponsors / Surveillance capitalism / pragmatic 

Money / Sponsors / Surveillance capitalism / pragmatic 

Money / Sponsors / Surveillance capitalism / pragmatic 

Money / Sponsors / Surveillance capitalism / pragmatic 

Money / Sponsors / Surveillance capitalism / pragmatic 

Money / Sponsors / Surveillance capitalism / pragmatic 

Money / Sponsors / Surveillance capitalism / pragmatic 

Money / Sponsors / Surveillance capitalism / pragmatic 

Money / Sponsors / Surveillance capitalism / pragmatic 

Money / Sponsors / Surveillance capitalism / pragmatic 

Money / Sponsors / Surveillance capitalism / pragmatic 

Money / Sponsors / Surveillance capitalism / pragmatic 

Money / Sponsors / Surveillance capitalism / pragmatic 

@downey @ekaitz_zarraga @maloki @cwebber @wolftune This is what I mean by whitewashing. You’re doing it now.

Google is a surveillance capitalist. Do you acknowledge that their core business model is unethical? Do you acknowledge that they are a threat to human rights and democracy? It doesn’t seem like you do. And that’s the real problem here.

The American Lung Association isn’t sponsored by and would never dream of being sponsored by Philip Morris not due to obligations but due to ethics.

@aral @downey @ekaitz_zarraga @maloki @cwebber @wolftune Regardless, removing future money they can select which people they like talking, even if the people talking don't change what they say or how they say it.

And removal of money for these events is always lurking.

One might wonder where the money should come from otherwise. I mean, maybe there are 3M people willing to give 100€/year thats a lot of dough. (a patreon of ~8€/month) Though Google/etc can easily match even such numbers..

@jasper

Google doesn't make money, they just capture it. The big picture answer to "where should money come from?" is really asking "where should resources come from?"

Each decision exists in a context. But our *broad* goal should be to stop Google et al from capturing the money in the first place.

So, when we accept their money now, we just want to make sure it isn't counteracting that bigger, broader goal.

@aral @downey @ekaitz_zarraga @maloki @cwebber

@wolftune @aral @downey @ekaitz_zarraga @maloki @cwebber It's pretty much all that right now, almost no-one makes money, or earns things, ever.

Anyway, easier said than done. I don't think it is necessarily obvious to the people that their ideas & their kind of personality was favored.

Maybe it doesn't mean that all google-money needs to be excluded, but it certainly means, that a bunch of people need to operate entirely outside it. (ostracization of such people is the start of polarization)

Money / Sponsors / Surveillance capitalism / pragmatic 

Money / Sponsors / Surveillance capitalism / pragmatic 

Money / Sponsors / Surveillance capitalism / pragmatic 

@aral

@cwebber @wolftune

You very well know a lot of people boycotted the #copyleftconf fire this very reason, so saying this is quite an open washing move.

One thing that appeared at #FOSDEM is that some people are willing to find other ways of funding the event without having to abandon it to surveillance capitalists.

Having a FOSDEM sponsored by smaller companies would save the day. Otherwise it will split the community and see that free software die for good.

@downey
Have some more male privilege for your dildo. Can you expand on the meaning of your intervention?
@aral @cwebber @wolftune

@downey
I really don't understand why you would consider "us" conspiracy theorists. Given your position, I think your perspective is important, although I can't understand what makes you think there are conspiracy theorists in the room.
@aral @cwebber @wolftune

@downey
We can talk this over in person since I'm close by
@aral @cwebber @wolftune

@downey @how @cwebber @wolftune How out of touch are you? Have you even heard of Cambridge Analytica? Do you even know what surveillance capitalism is?

With “friends” like you…

FFS!

@how @aral @cwebber @wolftune

FWIW I don't think the *size* of the sponsors matters much—a "long tail" of small sponsors could collude to exert significant pressure.

From my experience with academic conferences, I think what matters is whether the talk selection process is shielded from sponsor influence or not. E.g., are sponsor representatives on the program committee? Do the conference have slots reserved to sponsors? (And if so, are they clearly advertised as such?) etc.

My 0.02€

@zacchiro
I totally agree that size is not the issue and that shielding programme from sponsorship is required. But why would Palantir be a problem and not Google or Microsoft? In this moment of history, these latter two are at least as problematic as the former. By accepting them as legitimate sponsors, we grant them a legitimacy that they do not deserve.
@aral @cwebber @worolftune@social.coop

@how @aral @cwebber

I wanted to ask about that, so thanks for anticipating the question :-)

I do agree that legitimacy/visibility is more of a concern than actual influence on conference content, but I wasn't sure we were on the same line.

Having clarified that, the visibility issue is shared by a lot of FOSS conferences (including #FOSDEM). It deserves: a) broader conversation than #CopyleftConf, b) sustainable alternatives (donations? higher registration fees? etc).

@zacchiro @how @aral @cwebber

I went to the #CopyleftConf to see for myself. While there was interesting content, the conference felt very corporate and very American - but this is not the organizers' fault. It's rather the European copyleft community that should step forward and reclaim its space there, even with content that the sponsors might not like. That would also be the test for the "sponsorship is not endorsement" statement.

@vbertola @zacchiro @how@ps.s10y.eu @cwebber @aral I'm a big supporter of #entrism as a general tactic, so +1 to that.

@zacchiro

I've been thinking about these challenges as organizational counterparts to this series of personal explorations which I think a lot of us are treating as old news, since it is, to us. Less so to a broader public:

gizmodo.com/i-cut-the-big-five

@vbertola @cwebber @aral

@aral @cwebber @wolftune
Perhaps it's a more general trend..

The plane(t) has been hijacked by billionaires, and we're all passengers / Boing Boing

boingboing.net/2019/02/02/limi

@aral @cwebber

I can't follow threads of who responded to whom. I think this is missing a hashtag.

Anyway, this is *something*, but the apology I talk about means explaining that this is a compromise, that there is something wrong and saying why the compromise was taken anyway.

"sponsorship isn't endorsement" doesn't express awareness of compromise. It is too easy to read as "nothing is wrong here".

@wolftune @cwebber @aral

Unpacking the statement may be useful, when you thank a sponsor, which is what the confs do when they issue <insert metal here> levels of sponsorship and plaster it on their website, is surely endorsement. They use the companies name, therefore they are surely not thanking the individual in the company who made the spending decision, they are thanking the company. how can you differentiate that from endorsement.

A good experiment would be; you can sponsor the event but your name will not appear on any promotional material, it will be replaced by "donations from surveillance capitalism" and see the level of "philanthropy" you receive. Granted there are other issues with sponsorship this would not address.

@gert Yes Anand is worth paraphrasing - these companies would never sponsor anything that is a real threat to their business models, they will only ever give back less then they take - anyone wanting real change to our situation cannot and should not rely on them for anything.
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Aral’s Mastodon

This is my personal Mastodon.