I don’t know what understanding you have of this topic, but historically and presently, the Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are ideological opposites, with the latter spawning off of the first to accomodate pro-corporate, pro-capitalist positions.

Both of these are also different from the totality of entities proposing “open source licensing”, which is a much broader set.

Then nowadays the Free Software Movement lost its momentum and it has been subsumed into the idea of “FOSS”, but still, it should be treated as its own, dinstinct entity.

As for the genocide per default part: Its nonsense to believe that if open source didnt exist or was different that it would somehow lead to less genocide.

Open source is just a technical and legal reflection of a world and a time where Imperial venture capital benefited from the free flow of information. I think the author would agree that, if open source didn’t exist, something else would have enabled similar or different forms of Imperial oppression, including genocide. Same for the start-up ecosystem, digital capital taking over the financial economy and Western democracies and so on. Open Source enabled that? For sure. But if we want to play “what if”, any serious materialist analysis would conclude that Open Source was just a tool for digital capital to express itself and exploit workers. A tool that could have been replaced by something else.

the article doesn’t mention the Free Software Movement even once.

Also the article is making a point that you don’t need to side for genocide to enable a genocide. That’s the whole point.

you clearly have no clue what you’re talking about. The federal funding goes to Weizenbaum Institute, that is another very big institution in techno politics and other fields of research. You keep googling shit up.

funneling of grants towards her dubious work at TUB

Bro, don’t just google shit about scholars you have no clue about and make up fake accusations. She’s not doing research at TU Berlin, she’s just a lecturer there. She’s one of the most famous scholars in this field and she’s associated more strongly with DAIR, which is a thousand times more relevant in this discourse than TU, and DiPLab in Paris.

You clearly just googled her name, checked where she works, and made up some shit.

also shaming anybody for the labor they have to do to survive is the most reactionary patronizing bullshit ever.

user research is a common design and marketing term to mean “identify product consumption and interface preferences”

yeah and it does harm. Any technology amputated a part of us. The point is deciding if it’s worth the cost.

if you want to know more about TWC: https://techworkerscoalition.org/

fixed them, thank you

It’s hand-written and it’s a famous blog about techno-magic. Also it’s very explicitly against new age, that’s the whole point of the article.

because a media outlet goes where there are viewers. They write to be read, so there’s little benefit in going on platforms where there’s nobody.

They have fascists in power and they still care about language. Also missing the whole context since they clearly didn’t read the article.

well, it’s full of nazi furries

yes. That’s how Mussolini and Hitler got into power.

What’s happening is wildly inconstitutional and violent in nature. It’s just not military violence for a military coup. Not all coups involve the military, that, if anything, here might be a stabilizing force.

After the USAID thing I called it this morning: Before the end of march the U.S. is a dictatorship in all but name.

You’re optimistic. Yarvinists are openly advocating for dictatorship.

USAID was a probing attack, gauge the reactions, develop plans, figure out how to do it better with the next department. You don’t start with Homeland Security, the CIA, or the FBI - that’s the final part.

Well, debatable. Purging the secret services first is always a great idea when you’re doing a coup.

Not everybody likes information density. Different targets, different styles.

The coup Is mostly through digital means at the moment. They are seizing IT systems and firing sysadmins who do not comply. It’s totally about technology, because this is the first coup done in a fully-digitalized global power and it looks nothing like the ones we have seen recently.

It could also be an inside job. Anti-genocide resistance within Microsoft is quite strong and active.

Most people are not free from the need to work and might have plenty of personal factors pushing them into compliance. Working for a company that gives good conditions and good salary should never be shamed. First because it alienates the people in question, reinforcing their disregard for any ethical or political discussion. Then because it sow division among the workers. The choice of the word “guilty” makes it worse.

Working for an evil company is not intrinsically an evil act: you might be trying to unionize it, you might sabotage it from within, for your own interest (taking naps) or political reasons, you might be salting it.

If you really want to run a purity test on people, you should try at least to assess the space of action they have to fight against the company evil practices, their knowledge of it, the risks they are taking if they went for action. If a person has a chance to act against the evil impact of the company, risks pretty much nothing, has all the knowledge and psychological strength to act, and then doesn’t act, then we can start talking about unethical behavior.