4 ms·

The FSF is a tiny organization with little funding; you can't lay the responsibility for "reaching out" on them. It's a question of what other cultural, educati

The FSF is a tiny organization with little funding; you can't lay the responsibility for "reaching out" on them. It's a question of what other cultural, educational and commercial organizations and groups have been doing; whether enough of them have taken these messages to heart; and what they have been promoting. Also, in suggesting they use Youtube or Twitter, you're simply exemplifying how you reject their principles. Those platforms are the opposite of free: Closed source, secret manipulation of content, censorship (and never mind the motivation), spying on users for the government, etc. The FSF would be hypocritical to endorse them. But of course, it does have "social network" videos - on PeerTube and MediaGoblin: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/fsf35-videos-online-find-them-on-peertube-and-mediagoblin https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/fsf35-videos-online-find... so ask yourself, why have we not been promoting those platforms, and why have everyone seemingly yielded to ever-widening control of our digital lives by these large corporations?

Kinrany 3y ago
Their goal should be encouraging people to demand open software and hardware, not being principled. Youtube and Twitter have power, not acknowledging that is dumb.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  I get what you're saying, but open soft- and hardware IS a principle, and using nonfree software themselves would come across as hypocritical, undermining their own message. The technology is there to make their own website and platforms; I'd argue that the problem isn't that they're not active on the big social media platforms, but that they don't produce media in the first place. They can chuck videos onto their own website, license it under a free license and allow others to repost them onto social media for exposure, for example.
  - Kinrany 3y ago
    They should keep copies of all that data, yeah. Being successful in killing closed platforms shouldn't result in any losses for them.
- l33t7332273 3y ago
  I don’t see how to interpret your comment in a way that doesn’t say “their goal should be encouraging people to be principled, not being being principled themselves.”
  - david-gpu 3y ago
    You can use a tool of a system you disagree with to raise concerns against that very system. There is no contradiction here, only pragmatism. GNU tools such as gcc were originally developed using proprietary software until the GNU fabric was dense enough to allow bootstrapping. How else can you achieve anything at all, really?
dale_glass 3y ago
> The FSF is a tiny organization with little funding; you can't lay the responsibility for "reaching out" on them. Sure can, that's the very purpose of their existence. "The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a nonprofit with a worldwide mission to promote computer user freedom." -- how is that going to happen if nobody hears what they want? > Also, in suggesting they use Youtube or Twitter, you're simply exemplifying how you reject their principles. And how else are people on those platforms going to hear anything? The only way I can imagine is either by people who don't agree with the FSF repeating their message (do you trust them to be accurate?), or people who do agree, but more willing to compromise. > so ask yourself, why have we not been promoting those platforms, and why have everyone seemingly yielded to ever-widening control of our digital lives by these large corporations? And you think posting in tiny platforms that almost nobody knows even exist is going to fix anything?
- Timshel 3y ago
  > And you think posting in tiny platforms that almost nobody knows even exist is going to fix anything? Nobody is preventing you to post to multiple platform .., and you might have way more engagement in smaller platform. The recent Mastodon growth allowed me to leave Twitter, I'm missing some content would be nice if more people cross-posted but well I'll do without.
loup-vaillant 3y ago
There’s a conundrum though: the inescapable fact is that outside of a couple proprietary/closed networks such as YouTube, there is virtually no audience to speak to. So you can either stick to your principles and reach no one, or you can compromise and expose many more people to your discourse. Sure, some of this situation is on us, not on the FSF. But I’m discussing what the FSF can do here. And I’m afraid they don’t have much choice.

Kinrany 3y ago

Their goal should be encouraging people to demand open software and hardware, not being principled. Youtube and Twitter have power, not acknowledging that is dumb.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago
I get what you're saying, but open soft- and hardware IS a principle, and using nonfree software themselves would come across as hypocritical, undermining their own message. The technology is there to make their own website and platforms; I'd argue that the problem isn't that they're not active on the big social media platforms, but that they don't produce media in the first place. They can chuck videos onto their own website, license it under a free license and allow others to repost them onto social media for exposure, for example.
- Kinrany 3y ago
  They should keep copies of all that data, yeah. Being successful in killing closed platforms shouldn't result in any losses for them.
l33t7332273 3y ago
I don’t see how to interpret your comment in a way that doesn’t say “their goal should be encouraging people to be principled, not being being principled themselves.”
- david-gpu 3y ago
  You can use a tool of a system you disagree with to raise concerns against that very system. There is no contradiction here, only pragmatism. GNU tools such as gcc were originally developed using proprietary software until the GNU fabric was dense enough to allow bootstrapping. How else can you achieve anything at all, really?

dale_glass 3y ago

> The FSF is a tiny organization with little funding; you can't lay the responsibility for "reaching out" on them. Sure can, that's the very purpose of their existence. "The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a nonprofit with a worldwide mission to promote computer user freedom." -- how is that going to happen if nobody hears what they want? > Also, in suggesting they use Youtube or Twitter, you're simply exemplifying how you reject their principles. And how else are people on those platforms going to hear anything? The only way I can imagine is either by people who don't agree with the FSF repeating their message (do you trust them to be accurate?), or people who do agree, but more willing to compromise. > so ask yourself, why have we not been promoting those platforms, and why have everyone seemingly yielded to ever-widening control of our digital lives by these large corporations? And you think posting in tiny platforms that almost nobody knows even exist is going to fix anything?

Timshel 3y ago
> And you think posting in tiny platforms that almost nobody knows even exist is going to fix anything? Nobody is preventing you to post to multiple platform .., and you might have way more engagement in smaller platform. The recent Mastodon growth allowed me to leave Twitter, I'm missing some content would be nice if more people cross-posted but well I'll do without.

loup-vaillant 3y ago

There’s a conundrum though: the inescapable fact is that outside of a couple proprietary/closed networks such as YouTube, there is virtually no audience to speak to. So you can either stick to your principles and reach no one, or you can compromise and expose many more people to your discourse. Sure, some of this situation is on us, not on the FSF. But I’m discussing what the FSF can do here. And I’m afraid they don’t have much choice.