• halcyoncmdr@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      One of several open source projects they’re helping fund happens to be run by a person like that. They’re funding is because of the open source project, but some people are very vocal that they’d rather the project not exist at all, and post about it every chance they get.

      It’s like how some vegans can’t help but tell you loudly and at every opportunity that they’re vegan. Or some of the more insufferable Linux users in general. Venn diagram is probably a near circle with that linux group actually.

      FOSS is a pretty small community in the grand scheme, if you avoided any project run by an objectionable individual, you couldn’t run much of anything.

      There’s been plenty of posts about this particular issue all over if you go looking for it. I’d recommend doing your own research on whether you have a problem with it, and not rely on just a couple random commenters here, myself included.

    • Caveman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      18 hours ago

      They sent money to DHH, creator of Ruby and gave some lip service to his Omarchy OS. They were defending it with some big tent statements which didn’t go super well with the ones that had a bad opinion of him. DHH has great replacement theory views which is concerning and blogs about it.

      Their Arch based Hyprland stuff was overblown though since it was just one weird mod and didn’t reflect the project’s leadership opinions.

          • 𝖕𝖘𝖊𝖚𝖉@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            That’s not how it works, right? You make the accusation; so you provide the evidence.

            The claim implied in the present tense is that their relationship with DHH (insofar as there was one) is still ongoing.

            • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 hours ago

              I’m not in the habit of assuming companies that knowingly supported bigots, the benefit of the doubt. If there isn’t a clear, loud and non ambiguous walking back of their clear, loud and unambiguous support, then why would you, I or anyone else assume they have done so?

              • 𝖕𝖘𝖊𝖚𝖉@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                Because… of the paper trail? Rails World 2026 sponsorships are up and they are not in; they haven’t retweeted Omarchy rices since October; and… I admit, I can’t be sure they haven’t sent him another computer. Which — as you know — concludes the exhaustive trifecta of clear, loud and unambiguous support for bigots.

                But you, I, and everyone else knows it’s not about what they do materially. As someone in a related thread actually put in writing, they ought to “denounce, when questioned”.

                Meh.

                • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 hours ago

                  I’m not “meh” about denouncing bigots. If you’ve supported a bigot and you don’t actively and vocally walk it back, that’s not “meh”. That’s a refusal to acknowledge the issue and the harm done in normalising the voices and visibility of bigots

                  • 𝖕𝖘𝖊𝖚𝖉@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    56 minutes ago

                    If we agree the issue is about denouncing alone, and not any material activity, maybe the intellectually honest thing would be to update

                    tech company funding racists and transphobes

                    They support and fund DHH

                    to say what you actually mean — a tech company that refused to take a stance outside of their purview. (As a company). Which, I agree, is not exactly a badge of honour.

                    (Not to mention they never, once, funded DHH directly. But sure, retweets win at the exchange rate.)

                    (Oh and please look up Mette Frederiksen at some point.)