10 ms·
No Billionares at FOSDEM
- lotharcable2 2y ago[flagged]
- debo_ 2y agoHe isn't boycotting. He is planning to peacefully protest, which I think is reasonable.
- clovoak 2y agoWhy is it reasonable to interrupt everyone else's freedom to hear someone talk?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- necovek 2y agoIf you believe someone is actively harming the audience (as he seems to), a peaceful protest is the way to go. We'll learn soon enough if he is right and the community stands (sits?) with him or not. But I couldn't not giggle on "freedom to hear someone talk" as an inverse of "free speech". Jack Dorsey has many platforms where he is welcome, and there are plenty opportunities to hear him share his thoughts. It's not like someone on the fringes is being shut off.
- LordShredda 2y agoHe's not "violating" someone's freedom to listen to a talk, but rather he hates the guy and wants him gone. At least he's doing something about it
- phkahler 2y ago>> He isn't boycotting. He is planning to peacefully protest, which I think is reasonable. No. He's planning to forcefully disrupt by blocking the stage. Narcissistic to the core: "My views and need for attention are more important than the other 8000 people here who may want to see this talk."
- debo_ 2y agoDisrupting access with your physical presence is not a use of force. Without peaceful protests, people will resort to violence more often.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y agoYou're importing protest tactics developed for use against governments and large corporations into a context where they don't make any sense. There, this legalistic distinction between "force" and "disruption" is quite important, because ensuring you don't cross the line to "force" greatly decreases the legitimacy of any violent response. It doesn't matter at FOSDEM, because FOSDEM is not going to hire goons to beat you up regardless of what you do.
- debo_ 2y agoI don't fully understand your reply. Peaceful protests have existed for a long while before corporations did, for many different causes. They weren't always existential, nor were they always directed at the state. I have participated in community events where venue security decided they had to forcibly remove protesters from the premises, and in one case they contacted police for help. I qualify those as peaceful protests, and I believe security / police took reasonable measures to respond. No one was hurt, and everyone got the message, whether they agreed with it or not.
- phkahler 2y ago>> Disrupting access with your physical presence is not a use of force. When they try to move him, will that be use of force? When he tries to resist being moved will that not be forcibly staying?
- pjfin123 2y agoDisrupting a talk isn't really "peaceful". You're physically obstructing the talk and daring the conference organizers who rented the room and other participants who want to hear the talk to use force to remove you.
- debo_ 2y agoYou're describing disruption, not violence.
- ergonaught 2y agoIn my experience he typically has a reasonable point, even if everything surrounding the point is wildly off mark.
- Etheryte 2y agoI think this is not a charitable take. The writing is balanced and he highlights that this is his subjective opinion and preference. Your comment is hyperbole and blows the whole thing out of proportion.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y agoHe highlights that this is his subjective opinion and preference right before announcing that he’s going to try and stop the talk from happening by sitting down on the stage. I think this is an extraordinarily rude thing to do at a volunteer led event and really demands a better justification than subjective dislike.
- Etheryte 2y agoYou could say the same about any peaceful protest, whether it's this, climate, politics, or etc. I don't have a strong opinion about this specific talk happening, but I think that if you see something that's wrong in the world, you should try to right it, extremes notwithstanding.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y agoI could not say the same about any peaceful protest because most peaceful protests are not held to disrupt volunteer-led events. I don’t agree that you should try and enforce your personal preferences for who deserves a conference speaking slot by declaring you’ll try and prevent those you don’t approve of from taking the stage.
- stavros 2y agoI have no opinion on the rest of the article, but it feels a bit disingenuous to say that Twitter burdened Mastodon because it made the latter much more popular.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- tucnak 2y agoAre you hackers or what?
- maplant 2y agoI’ve disagreed with Drew on many things in the past but this is something with him that I 100% aligned, and I sincerely hope that he is joined by many others at the sit in.
- phoronixrly 2y agoSame, I never thought I'd ever share an opinion with him...
- baggy_trough 2y ago[flagged]
- hshshshshsh 2y agoFrom your POV yes. But obviously not from Drew's POV. Now that we established everyone have different POV and a sense of what is right and wrong how do we proceed from here?
- baggy_trough 2y agoBy listening to different points of view and deciding what best makes sense to us. That is why suppressing speech(es) is wrong.
- hshshshshsh 2y agoThat is fair. What is your counter argument Drew?
- bogwog 2y agoA protest like this is basically just IRL adblock. Do you not use ad blockers because of "free speech" ideology?
- lvass 2y agoIt's more like installing adblock in the computers of everyone in a room without asking for permission.
- baggy_trough 2y agoIt's actually more like replacing the content of an article they are trying to read with an ad for yourself.
- immibis 2y agoImagine if Windows came with adblock out of the box. It would be the best thing Microsoft ever did. Now imagine the next best thing: if Dell installed adblock on all its Windows before you bought them. It would be the best thing Dell ever did. Now imagine the next next best thing: if someone broke into a Dell warehouse, installed adblock on all the computers, and didn't do anything else. This would be a horrible crime and the perpetrator must be brought to justice post-haste!
- pjmlp 2y ago[flagged]
- JSR_FDED 2y agoBy all means let them sponsor open source events, we’ll just take the benefits. If that means listening to their latest swindle then so be it, small price to pay. Isn’t this what the phrase “useful idiots” was invented for?
- bogwog 2y agoSo conference organizers get in on the grift while the community is robbed by whatever crypto scam/other bullshit this guy sells on stage? I guess it's fine if they also add a large and prominent "THIS GUY IS TRYING TO ROB YOU" banner to the stage and livestreams.
- JSR_FDED 2y agoI think the people who attend open source conferences can spot the equivalent of the timeshare presentation.
- michaelt 2y agoIf you think that's bad, wait until you hear about how many unpaid volunteers are running FOSDEM as a "free and non-commercial event"
- whamlastxmas 2y agoI hope those volunteers decline to volunteer their time to setup and run jacks presentation then
- SpicyLemonZest 2y agoI hope that they do whatever they personally feel is an appropriate use of their time, and that know-it-alls in the crowd don’t try and ruin anything that the volunteers do end up deciding is worth working hard to set up.
- whamlastxmas 2y ago
- handity 2y agoI have no opinion on the sit-in, but it is always hilarious to see ex-Twitterites breathlessly bemoaning the sale, as if massive centralized ad-based networks feeding algorithmically presented "content" to the masses are somehow a boon to society as long as they are owned by a "good guy".
- wormlord 2y agoI don't know how someone could look at Dorsey/Musk/Bezos actions and still be interested in what they have to say. There's probably a lot to be learned from someone who worships money, assuming that your goal is to emulate them. However their lifestyle and ideology is inherently dangerous to workers and life on earth as we know it. So yeah I don't really care what they have to say beyond knowing how the enemy views the average citizen (hint: it's not very positively).
- throw5959 2y agoWhat other person started a rocket company from scratch and got them landing? Of course I want to hear everything he says. Yes, he's crazy - seems to be a requirement if you want to do such stuff. Doesn't mean I will ignore it. I can think for myself, it's not like I take everything at face value. All that to say, perhaps other people don't prioritize values like you do. The technical excellence that companies repeatedly achieved under Musk is incredible.
- boxed 2y agoIt's so sad that the current culture wants to judge peoples life based on the worst they've ever done. Yea, Musk is a troll online, but his success as a business/tech leader is something you can only doubt by donning the proverbial tin foil hat.
- wormlord 2y agoI care less about his "troll" posts online (implying there is a conspiracy of jews importing people to destroy America is just a troll and not an actual Nazi conspiracy guys) than his manipulation of the US government, mistreatment of workers, and maybe the most egregious of all, being a fake nerd and pretending to like Evangelion.
- whamlastxmas 2y agoAre you as militant about dunking on the million other people who also manipulate the government and mistreat workers to an even greater extent?
- hello_computer 2y ago[flagged]
- Arch-TK 2y agoI don't like Jack Dorsey and I don't get why he should be involved in the FOSDEM keynote either but why is Drew incapable of forming any argument anyone could actually agree with? You dislike Jack because he sold Twitter and it made mastodon popular, and that's a bad thing? And because this also meant that people with cushy FAANG jobs who could easily find another job at the drop of a hat got displaced by Elon as a result? Is that really your argument Drew? Maybe it's time for a "No Drews DeVault at FOSDEM" blog post.
- inemesitaffia 2y agoJack didn't sell Twitter.
- Arch-TK 2y agoWell yes, there is also that (apparently he had no choice and didn't even sell his stock, not that I feel sorry for him, but seems like Drew's argument only gets weaker).
- duxup 2y ago>In my view, billionaires are not welcome at FOSDEM. I see no reason to discriminate against wealth explicitly. Rather if someone's actions make them worth leaving out, then yeah that's a reason: >Dorsey is presumably being platformed in Janson because his blockchain bullshit company is a main sponsor of FOSDEM this year. That's your problem, not the money. That problem is not solved by drawing the line at personal wealth.
- bambax 2y agoThe money in itself is a problem. People with that amount of wealth are separated from the rest of humanity (and most of the time go to great lengths to make sure they absolutely never cross path with ordinary humans). They don't have the same goals as everyone else, they don't face the same issues, they contribute to climate change in extreme proportions while escaping its most urgent consequences (for the time being). They have enough influence in the world as it is, for the rest of us not voluntarily giving up some of our precious time to listen to what they have to say.
- duxup 2y agoPeople with not as much wealth are more reasonable or something? I don't buy it. We're talking about a conference that apparently puts itself up for sale in a way ... that's the problem. The other stuff is a silly distraction. You're not solving anything with a personal wreath rule, conference is still for sale. Dude with slightly less wealth is going to just buy in...
- bambax 2y ago> People with not as much wealth are more reasonable Oh, no. But they have less power and less influence, and are more likely to fly commercial when they come talk to a conference, so have lower emissions. Also, I'm talking more in general: we should absolutely not listen to billionaires, even those few who, unlike Musk, haven't yet gone completely insane.
- 2y ago
- myst 2y agoWhy not just take the money and skip the talk? He can speak to an empty hall as much as he pleases.
- latexr 2y ago> Why not just take the money and skip the talk? I don’t understand what you’re suggesting here. FOSDEM is a free event, attendees don’t pay. I doubt speakers are paid much or at all, either, though I wouldn’t be surprised if the organisers covered their travel/hotel/meals.
- myst 2y agoFOSDEM takes his sponsor money, attendees do not show up to the talk.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- batushka5 2y ago[flagged]
- noisy_boy 2y ago> After Dorsey sold Twitter to Elon Musk, selling the platform out to the far right for a crisp billion-with-a-“B” dollar payout Tangential point but did he sell Twitter to Musk? I thought Twitter was a publicly owned company and its board (on which Jack wasn't present AFAIK) agreed to sell to Musk. Jack did rollover his holdings into the new private entity X Holdings Corp created for this purpose, instead of cashing-out. So instead of owning 2.4% or so of Twitter shares, he holds shares of X Holdings Corp, I think.
- lolinder 2y ago> After Dorsey sold Twitter to Elon Musk, selling the platform out to the far right for a crisp billion-with-a-“B” dollar payout Twitter was publicly traded at the time and Dorsey owned approximately 2-3%. The shareholders overwhelmingly voted in favor of the sale, effectively giving Dorsey no choice. He, in fact, didn't even sell, he instead rolled his shares over into the new company, which means he didn't take the payout implied and instead ate the decrease in value that has occurred since then. I'm all for criticizing billionaires for the things they do wrong, but there are enough of those things that we don't need to invent fault where there is none! It's actually counterproductive to do so because it distracts from your legitimate points.
- zellyn 2y agoTo be fair (and I'm a big fan of Drew), it seems unlikely that Jack could have prevented the sale of Twitter to Musk. I'm part-way through the book “Character Limit: How Elon Musk Destroyed Twitter” by Kate Conger and Ryan Mac, and so far I can recommend it. It's not necessarily perfect writing (they do _not_ think highly of Jack, nor really any other tech-bros), but definitely informative. [Disclaimer: I have been an employee at Square/Block for nine years now, so I technically work for Jack. Luckily, we have the kind of work culture where my openly bemoaning his blockchain obsession has not (yet) had any (obvious) negative consequences… although tbh I would be _extremely_ surprised if he even recognized my name or face.]
- airhangerf15 2y ago> I'm a big fan of Drew You know he ran the Stallman hit piece, right? You know it was also discovered he was into a certain type of Japanese "art" involving the exact same child-involved things he criticized Stallman for right? (There's a website detailing it, but gets flagged/removed from here) You should not be a fan of Drew. He is a terrible human being. I had a friend house him during a conference and found the man insufferable. He's a hypocrite and lolcow and no one should take anything he say seriously.
- zellyn 2y agoHmmm. Now I'm not sure what to think. Despite the flack he gets, I've thought most of what he wrote was reasonable, including the Stallman Report — although it's been a long while since I read it carefully. I'm curious as to what flavor of insufferable he was to your friend. As for being into sexually explicit drawings of minors… yuck.
- fizzler 2y agoMore info here: https://dmpwn.info https://dmpwn.info
- wolvesechoes 2y agoBillionares should not surprise anyone, as since Occupy capital did a very good job of hiding wolves among the sheep. As for Drew, he is yet another narcissistic drama queen interested mostly in his own virtue signaling, as shown by Stallman case. His language was forged by liberal preachers that whisper to destroy any solidarity and political power of lower classes; to give them fake individualism, diversity and representation instead of real, material emancipation. Considering that FOSS movement is filled with such people, and prefers code of conducts and pronouns juggling over real political power, I can easily predict it is doomed to fail. So billionares at FOSDEM are just a symptoms of a terminal illness.
- rabite 2y ago> After Dorsey sold Twitter to Elon Musk, Extreme eyeroll on this post. Twitter's shareholders voted overwhelmingly to sell to Musk. 98.6% of them voted an affirmative yes, in which Dorsey was a very small minority. Dorsey could have voted no at ten times his stake in the company and still it would have been sold to Musk. Everyone was in agreement Musk was overpaying to an extreme degree. > and its 11 million tons of annual CO2 emissions Nobody is more in opposition to the current energy regime than Bitcoin miners. They are consistent lobbyists for deregulating private nuclear power, so that they can cleanly power their operations. This reads like a petulant Communist's criticism of Dorsey. Much like many other of the author's diatribes.
- einpoklum 2y agoI would not approve of having a Billionaire keynote a FOSS conference based on his business ventures. However, the author says that billionaires should: > instead buy our respect by, say, donating 250 million dollars to NLNet > or the Sovereign Tech Fund and then, he would have our respect? Hmm. I was later reminded of this phrase when reading author also laments how > Dorsey sold Twitter to Elon Musk, selling the platform out to the far right as if a Billionaire + BlackRock + Vanguard can "sell out" in any way, as if they are somehow an elightened elite which is supposed to hold the fort, while Billionaire #2 (Musk) is the evil-far-right we must defend the other Capitalists from.
- duxup 2y ago[flagged]
- phoronixrly 2y agoYou see, there's the crux -- if one's a billionaire, one is obviously hoarding money as in not using any significant amount of it to the benefit of society and definitely not to help open-source which is the topic of FOSDEM. Otherwise one would not be a billionaire. By this logic, billionaires are off-topic to FOSDEM. Thus what are billionaires doing speaking on FOSDEM?
- inemesitaffia 2y agoPeople rarely hoard their money as cash. The benefit to society is in the companies they hold
- phoronixrly 2y agoThe guy is famous for companies like Twitter and has a blockchain obsession... Pretty sure you can't just draw a conclusion he's a benefit to society. Def. a benefit to other billionaire shareholders tho. Still off-topic for FOSDEM.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago> Dorsey is presumably being platformed in Janson because his blockchain bullshit company is a main sponsor of FOSDEM this year. This part just isn’t true. Does the author think that Block is a blockchain company?
- whamlastxmas 2y agoIt definitely is in terms of product offerings, though it’s not their main money maker
- SpicyLemonZest 2y agoI guess, but it feels more than a little like calling Amazon a video streaming company. I don’t think someone who understood that Block is Square would identify it this way.
- michaelt 2y agoIn 2022 at the peak of cryptocurrency mania, when the market for bored ape NFTs was worth a billion dollars, Dorsey decided to pivot away from the point-of-sales business, develop a bitcoin hardware wallet, develop a bitcoin mining chip, and rename the company from Square to Block. Completely understandable decision at the time. Who wouldn't want a piece of that action? But we can't retcon the pivot out of existence just because the blockchain hype has cooled off.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 2y agoThere are two things that don't sit right with me: 1. "the FOSS community shouldered the burden – both with our labor and our wallets – of a massive exodus onto our volunteer-operated servers" -- this implies that users actually using decentralized services is a burden, a bad thing. Or rather, that a) it would be much better if Twitter was better and people just continued using Twitter rather than FOSS platforms b) that Twitter has some kind of obligation to keep their platform good because not doing so will make people use FOSS services. If the operators don't want their service to be used, they don't have to offer it... 2. "No billionaires" as a motto, implying that having money in itself (and not a specific way of behaving) is wrong, unethical, and worthy of exclusion. That feels like an very common envy-based position, trying to tear people down because they are better off. He does have reasonable points for not wanting that specific billionaire, but the demand for exclusion is "no billionaires". Should e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Acton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Acton not be allowed/given a platform at FOSDEM?
- NautilusWave 2y agoThat sounds like something a billionaire would say.
- bo0tzz 2y ago> implying that having money in itself (and not a specific way of behaving) is wrong, unethical, and worthy of exclusion. Having money in the abstract is not. But being a billionaire is.
- disqard 2y agoI think you are (rightly) pointing out that "quantity has its own quality". As an analogy, this is similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit. To GP: It's less "no one should have any mass". It's more "Billionaires are like Black Holes, and therefore should be avoided" -- yes, it is a value judgement; no, it's not a blanket statement about money.
- aoeusnth1 2y ago
- Shawnecy 2y ago[flagged]
- swed420 2y agoSeriously a new low for "hacker" news
- immibis 2y agoIt is, and always has been, venture capital funded developer news.
- anonfordays 2y agoWe shouldn't be platforming or providing safe spaces to pedophiles. I flag any and all Drew DeVault content because I don't want this to be a pedophile bar.
- lolinder 2y agoI'm one of the flaggers. This is just my opinion, I'm not speaking for the others, but: I flagged because the piece is poorly argued and mostly just spiteful. It starts off on a bad foot by implying that Dorsey chose to sell Twitter to Musk and made billions on the sale, both of which are false. Dorsey was forced to sell Twitter to Musk by the shareholders and the board. The shareholders profited, but Dorsey actually did not sell his shares, which means he did not cash out and instead lost money over the course of Musk's tenure. All of that nuance is ignored in favor of a swipe that's used to imply that Dorsey is a billionaire because he profited off selling Twitter to the far right. Then later he uses his dislike for Dorsey in particular (and don't get me wrong, there are plenty of reasons to dislike Dorsey even if the Twitter sale isn't one of them) to justify saying that all billionaires should be unwelcome at FOSDEM. This isn't backed up by any sort of argument for why this generalization makes sense, it's just assumed that you should agree with him. Maybe we should, maybe we shouldn't, but there's no argument there. In all, I'm unimpressed with the piece and the comment section reflected the mood of the piece: kind of mindlessly cranky without much thought. So I flagged the article because it's not the kind of thing that I think belongs on HN.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y agoNo SNI: https://web.archive.org/web/20250116135759if_/https://drewdevault.com/2025/01/16/2025-01-16-No-Billionares-at-FOSDEM-please.html https://web.archive.org/web/20250116135759if_/https://drewde...
- dodgyddv 2y ago[dead]
- huijzer 2y ago> [...] peacefully prevent the talk from proceeding as scheduled. I am strongly opposed to this idea. We should not be burning books and should not be preventing talks from proceeding. See Tim Urban's book What's Our Problem?: A Self-Help Book for Societies for why blocking speakers is a bad idea. Tim's argument essentially is that it's okay to decide you don't want to see a speaker, it's also okay to decide if you advice your friends to not see a speaker, but it's not okay to block a speaker from speaking to anyone.
- latexr 2y ago> (…) why blocking speakers is a bad idea. Tim's argument essentially (…) That didn’t explain anything. You just said “it’s OK to do X but not OK to do Y” with no supporting argument.
- huijzer 2y agoWell you can read the book. The argument is quite nuanced (and important!) so I'm having a hard time to correctly put in into words in one comment.
- hintymad 2y agoYeah. If we feel strongly about Dorsey speaking, just don't go to the keynote? Imagine the keynote has few or even no audience, wouldn't that be strong enough a message? Dragging everyone down for one's own morality is not good for the conference or our society.
- beefnugs 2y agoSeems like there should be a reasonable protocol for major protest to a presentation without actually stopping it: like a sound proof booth over to the side where they can make whatever gestures and signs they want, and also speakers in the booth that are broadcasting their opinions on what is being said... anyone in the audience can have an earpieces to control the amount and channel of protest they want to hear personally
- timeon 2y agoI do not have opinion about the person or general issue, but platforming crypto scam at FOSDEM is rather sad.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago"If billionaires want to participate in FOSS, I'm going to ask them to refrain from using our platforms to talk about their AI/blockchain/bitcoin/climate-disaster-as-a-service grifty business ventures, and instead buy our respect by, say, donating 250 million dollars to NLNet or the Sovereign Tech Fund." It seems that Dorsey is into cryptocurrency. https://www.wsj.com/articles/square-changes-name-to-block-days-after-ceo-jack-dorsey-leaves-twitter-11638394200 https://www.wsj.com/articles/square-changes-name-to-block-da... https://fortune.com/crypto/2023/02/21/bitcoiners-flocking-to-nostr-social-network-jack-dorsey-edward-snowden/ https://fortune.com/crypto/2023/02/21/bitcoiners-flocking-to... https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jack-dorseys-bitcoin-vision-block-133022519.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jack-dorseys-bitcoin-vision-b... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0eMHXx6zdg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0eMHXx6zdg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-04-13/twitter-founder-jack-dorsey-s-bitcoin-obsession-explained https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-04-13/twitter-f... https://www.cnbctv18.com/technology/jack-dorsey-seeks-court-ruling-on-bitcoin-founder-identity-18977311.htm https://www.cnbctv18.com/technology/jack-dorsey-seeks-court-...
- fizzler 2y ago[dead]
- omnimus 2y agoIs it that interesting? I mean he likes anime porn? That's it or like is there actually some proof hes a pedophile? On the other hand that Stallman report... oof
- fizzler 2y agoThe proof that Drew DeVault is a pedophile is right there in the document I linked.
- mardifoufs 2y agoAre you saying that liking loli porn (porn of animated children), to the point of moderating a community based around said porn, is less of a problem than the (very real, I agree) issues highlighted in the Stallman report? Both are super problematic, but being actively into porn that is actually banned in a lot of countries because of its links to pedophilia is even less defensible.
- omnimus 2y agoIt's first time i am seeing these reports. I read through them. I don't have prior opinion about DeVault (don't know much about him) and i am not fighting for him. But the report seems to try to nail him for liking animated porn. I don't get much kick out of animated porn but the stuff i've seen has always been "enhanced" - everything is either too big, too small, too young, to old. I am not sure how you can compare that to child pedophilia where just the creation of that material is an awful abuse. Is it wierd to me? Sure i don't get how somebody can be excited about that. But people have wierd kinks and things like wierd real life extreme abuse porn seems to me to be worse and its legal. Is there higher chance people that like animated porn like child pornography? For sure much higher. But it doesn't mean all of them are pedophiles. You know you become pedophile after you engage with that not just because of what your brain interprets as exciting. I am all for canceling this guy after somebody has proof about him being pedophile but if that report was proof i think many people (especially extremely online people on hacker news) would be in exactly same water.
- rendx 2y agoFlagged why?
- buzzert 2y ago> After Dorsey sold Twitter to Elon Musk, selling the platform out to the far right for a crisp billion-with-a-“B” dollar payout, the FOSS community shouldered the burden – both with our labor and our wallets – of a massive exodus onto our volunteer-operated servers I don't understand this sentiment at all. "We hate billionaires, but we need them to operate our servers because we don't want to"?
- inemesitaffia 2y agoAnd Dorsey didn't sell
- sebastix 2y agohttps://njump.me/nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqpnrnguxe8qszsshvgkvhn6qjzxy7xsvx03rlrtddr62haj4lrm3qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qghwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxummnw3ezucnpdejz7qpqvss0xvu9w8y8nf4quu9c5ahv3z8e7ee3yfdff0mmr0c3kzfec2mqvmfe0t https://njump.me/nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqpnrnguxe8qszsshvgkvhn6q... https://www.piratewires.com/p/interview-with-jack-dorsey-mike-solana https://www.piratewires.com/p/interview-with-jack-dorsey-mik...
- elric 2y agoThis whole thing is a non-issue, not sure why Drew is overreacting to this extent. FOSDEM is a not-for-profit org. They run on sponsorships and donations. Many sponsors are what we would consider to be part of Big Evil Tech. The last year I was at the FOSDEM beer event, Google sponsored many rounds of beer, in addition to helping pay for the conference. All the money that goes into FOSDEM is invested in subsequent editions. FOSDEM org gets money from the sponsored talk, but no one is required to attend it. If you don't like Dorsey or his talk, you don't have to attend it. Or better yet, you can attend it and ask critical questions.
- markvdb 2y agoFOSDEM organiser since 2001 here. I'm sure you meant to help, but a factual inaccuracy crept into your comment. FOSDEM has never ever scheduled any talk or other content in exchange for money. There is an absolute consensus within the organising all-volunteer team to stay that course. Our goal is to bring free and open source software developers together at a yearly conference. We manage income and expenses very carefully, eliminating any need to compromise our mission by selling talk space.
- doener 2y agoWhy is this flagged?
- inemesitaffia 2y agoNot every billionaire is publicly known. Some of the known ones kids don't share their parent's surnames. I'd like to see them keep Claire Wilson out