I was wrong about Google and Facebook: there’s nothing wrong with them (so say we all)
It’s always difficult admitting you’re wrong. But sometimes you have to in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. So, today, I admit that I was wrong about Google, Facebook, & surveillance capitalism in general being toxic for our human rights and democracy … it simply cannot be true given how they are endorsed by some of the most well-respected organisations in the world.
@aral I have serious criticisms of Google and Facebook myself. However, I don't agree with your criticism of Conservancy/Copyleft Conf. Conservancy has actually lost a lot of money over the years because it has stuck to its principles when sponsors preferred that it do something different (eg drop copyleft enforcement). That's one reason they started doing community fundraising drives, because they wouldn't have had the money to keep going otherwise *because* they stuck to their principles.
I have long advocated a middle-ground here:
**Whenever you compromise your values, APOLOGIZE for it**
Instead of insisting on absolute purity, we can accept that real-world trade-offs happen. But don't present it as normal business, ASK to be excused and explain the situation.
In this case, SFC etc. should have some qualifier every place they reference the Google or Microsoft sponsorships. Something like an *acknowledgement* that this is a compromise and link to a statement.
They can't say that.
It's like saying: sorry, we are organizing a conference on #copyleft with the worst enemy of copyleft out there, but hey this is not #marketing, this is serious stuff and you can trust we will be serious about exploring all the ways we can change copyleft to maximize #FreeSoftware, even if they don't want we to.
They can totally say something like: "We acknowledge that many practices of these companies go against the goals of Copyleft, and we recognize the concerns people have about the conflicts in our accepting their support as sponsors of our conference." and link to a longer statement about why they still felt the compromise was still the right decision.
I'm not asking anyone to deny anything. It's totally feasible to *admit* and *explain* when we make compromises.
But if you want #freedom to talk about something, you don't get money from people whose interests you could hurt.
You're nicely expressing the critique here. Conflicts-of-interest are serious.
I'm not myself arguing that the compromise in this case is the right decision. But both now and generally, I argue for a social norm where we expect apologies for *all* compromises of values. We can still disagree about which compromises are right or justified etc. Some compromises are just bad. But there needs to be room for compromise in general. Absolute purism is a dead-end
> But there needs to be room for
> compromise in general.
> Absolute purism is a dead-end.
I think that we agree on this.
Still, there should be a link between trust and intellectual honesty: if I don't state what I'm giving back for real, the social norm should still be to distrust me.
Otherwise we move from good sense to common sense to just reach indifference.
Controlling what people can think is the point of being the filter people use to access the noosphere.
It's like if you had #Google glasses always on already so that it can directly influence what you see.
I myself trusted Google a lot.
Years ago I even sent them a resume, and I know a couple of people there who are pretty good people.
But till the beginning of this year, with a seasoned #Google engineer removing my Copyright statements from Harvey without removing my code, ejected me out of my filter bubble.
Able of world wide scale #BrainWashing.
And while you might have the skill to see they are really so dangerous (and controlled by the most powerful military nation of the planet), I guess your first reaction reading these lines will be "hum... ok... Shamar is paranoid"
Guess why? ;-)
@wolftune @Shamar @cwebber This assumes that we take it at face value that Google, etc., are benevolent entities that would keep sponsoring these conferences/orgs even if they criticised them. That’s definitely how they want to be seen but my experience says otherwise. When (sponsor) Google had to follow my keynote at NextM, their representative was fuming and told the organisers to change the line up for the next event… https://mobile.twitter.com/aral/status/976738619527397379
@wolftune @Shamar @cwebber … New America fired Barry Lynn when his Open Markets criticised (New America sponsor) Google on antitrust grounds. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/us/politics/anne-marie-slaughter-new-america-google.html
More personally, Linda and I resigned from the Code Club board when we were told not to criticise (sponsor) Google: https://pando.com/2014/08/27/code-club-cofounder-resigns-after-being-ordered-not-to-criticize-google/
It’s all well and good to assume that these companies are benevolent and that their.m money comes without strings but it’s just not true.
@Shamar @wolftune @cwebber @aral Please see https://ecodigital.social/@adfeno/101394970414460497 and I also advise to study how US-based charities work, as they aren't simply nonprofits. They are less corruptible even when sponsored by for-profits or having these as patrons.
Do you mean they are completely naive and in good faith?
It's what I want to believe too, but they are severely challenging my suspension of disbelief.
In any case, here we are, as annoying schoolmates that correct the teacher, to remind them that Google presence will hurt and limit the discussion.
@adfeno @Shamar @wolftune @cwebber I advise you to study how institutional corruption works. Think: Why do lung cancer charities not have tobacco companies as sponsors? Why do organisations that exist to promote healthy diets not have McDonald’s or Coca Cola as sponsors? Why does Greenpeace not have Exxon Mobil as a sponsor?
An apology *is* a change. I strongly reject the rhetoric that statements are meaningless. Is this whole conversation meaningless, the complaints meaningless?
I want love to live in a world where everyone feels obligated to make public acknowledgements of any ethical or political compromises. That would make a huge difference.
Even when politicians are liars, the pretense that honesty matters has consequences. The current attack on that pretense is seriously harmful.
"what we are doing is wrong and we are going to keep doing it" is a TERRIBLE apology and everyone knows it.
An apology is not just "this is wrong", it's a *justification* / explanation / acknowledgement. The norm I advocate requires an *explanation* of why the compromise is continuing (if it is).
Would you be up for steel-manning my views instead of straw-manning?
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!