
Opinion: Open-source should stay away from all kinds of politics - TheLastSamurai
https://techtudor.blogspot.com/2020/06/opinion-open-source-should-stay-away.html
======
0xy
Look no further than Webpack shutting down their website and documentation
then angrily dismissing POCs who are concerned they can't do their jobs. [1]
In the same light, they shut down all of the incredibly respectful criticism
they received, mostly centered around not having the website accessible after
dismissing the message. [2]

[1]
[https://github.com/webpack/webpack.js.org/issues/3765](https://github.com/webpack/webpack.js.org/issues/3765)

[2]
[https://github.com/webpack/webpack.js.org/issues/3762](https://github.com/webpack/webpack.js.org/issues/3762)

Have we reached a point where open source will throw POC developers under the
bus in order to score political virtue points?

It's a total trainwreck, and politics is used as a weapon in open source
against political enemies through shut downs, egregious code of conduct
policies and arbitrary enforcement actions.

~~~
Nextgrid
When a company provides a service I expect them to continue doing so unless
there's a case of "force majeure".

By all means support whatever causes you believe in, write a blog post, donate
to the cause and (most importantly - which is what a lot of companies
conveniently omit in the case of BLM) fix your own internal issues related to
that cause.

But if you're going to degrade the service you promised to provide as some
sort of "support" it is just bullshit virtue-signaling and it is actively
hurting people _including_ those that are part of the cause you're supporting.

This is an open-source project so there's no liability or warranty attached to
it and we have no right to expect anything, but nevertheless I will definitely
keep this in mind next time I have to pick a technology or library and will
make sure to evaluate them not only on their technical merits but also on
their propensity to such bullshit.

~~~
0xy
Exactly, they have no obligation to keep the docs and website accessible but
are they really winning people over or bringing more awareness to this issue
by preventing you from working?

It's obvious even they know their actions can't stand up to basic scrutiny,
hence the immediate locking of the threads and even suspension of someone for
daring to have the opinion that they shouldn't be doing it.

A dismissable banner for the cause that doesn't screw your users? Far less
objectionable. It's baffling they went down that route, and it's emblematic of
ideology clouding judgement.

~~~
gremlinsinc
Isn't webpack open source? I mean seriously, most devs I know aren't paying
them a dime to use it...so stop complaining.

Use something else if you don't like it. Why does it matter how many people
use webpack if their just an open source library providing a service to all
devs for free?

~~~
Nextgrid
Webpack's website and marketing clearly tries to get us to use it, so although
it's open source, the author (and contributors) from the project have an
interest in people using their software.

In this case, they kind of pulled a bait and switch. They encouraged everyone
to use it and then are letting them down by preventing them from using it
efficiently on the basis of their own political beliefs.

It wouldn't be a problem if the project was advertised at the start as one
person's work that comes with no guarantee of maintenance, support and if the
guy suddenly goes crazy (whether because of political beliefs or otherwise) he
might take down the project.

This one on the other hand looks serious, has good marketing, corporate
sponsors, etc so while you can't ask for _more_ , you at least kind of expect
a serious project relied upon by thousands to not degrade _existing_ stuff on
the basis of political beliefs.

It's fine if you want to decide how your project is used (even for political
reasons) but the proper way to do so is via the license so potential users
know what they're in for before they start using the library and will
(usually) refrain from using the library if the license does not allow them.
This on the other hand is just a bait and switch and has tons of collateral
damage to parties unrelated to, or even _part of_ the BLM movement.

------
shreygineer
Hoping this is satire or somer sort of joke....but otherwise,

Popular open source developers are using their platforms to advocate against
oppression. This should be encouraged, not discourage - regardless of what
your political leanings are.

Would you be just as upset if they wrote #AllLivesMatter? Probably not.

This post is using open source as a thinly veiled guise to rant about "SJW"s
(the use of that term alone should disqualify it). This shouldn't be on HN.

~~~
smitty1e
I have personally been denounced on social media for asking the question:

"How is 'all lives matter' divisive in any way?"

The response was "Oh, well, you know."

No, really, I don't. "All" seems like an inclusive quantifier.

The best understanding I can reach is that many of the arguments in
circulation these days are NOT rational in nature.

~~~
testbot123
"All lives matter" is divisive because "black lives matter" is a statement
that black lives are largely devalued and forgotten in a system of
institutionalized racism. "Black lives matter" leaves off the implied "too":
"black lives matter, too."

> "WTF is the impulse behind changing #BlackLivesMatter to #AllLivesMatter. Do
> you crash strangers' funerals shouting I TOO HAVE FELT LOSS" \-
> @arthur_affect on Twitter

~~~
smitty1e
I feel as though this discussion has more to do with the control over the
discussion than with the content of either phrase.

~~~
eesmith
Well, yes? That is, the phrase "all lives matter" seems like it's often used
as a way to take control away from the discussion about largely devalued and
forgotten black lives.

If you want an explanation better than "Oh well, you know", you might start
with the criticism section of its Wikipedia entry, at
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Lives_Matter#Criticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Lives_Matter#Criticism)
.

------
Yetanfou
I'd rephrase that as 'free software should not do any politics which goes
outside of the specific issues which it was created to influence', i.e. issues
around copyright law, freedom of expression and related areas. Software
licences should be free of politics other than those mentioned areas, both to
avoid weakening the licence as well as to avoid fractioning the free software
landscape into political factions. Free software developers are of course free
to do politics but it should be made clear that any political expression
outside the mentioned areas is done on a personal note and does not represent
the project - something which can be hard to do for 1-person projects.

~~~
benjaminjosephw
The author is complaining about the twitter accounts of open source
contributors. Should they withhold their views on justice because it offends
some of their followers?

Yes, weakening free licenses with constraints aligned to individual causes is
problematic but that doesn't mean we should ignore all other issues of justice
outside of those related to ownership and control. If anything, we need more
conversations about the increasing inequalities and injustices caused by
technology and the role we play within that. How can we do that without having
"political" discussions in public? Why shouldn't entire open source
communities have these discussions collectively?

------
spankalee
Anyone who claims that Black Lives Matter is a Democratic party initiative and
uses "SJW" unironically should not be taken seriously.

~~~
Yetanfou
While I agree on the BLM issue I do not see an issue in the use of the term
'SJW' given that the term does describe an actual phenomenon which is found in
the Oxford dictionary. You might not agree with the interpretation - while it
initially was used as a badge of honour by people who described themselves as
such the term has taken on a more negative connotation in the last years - but
that does not preclude others from using it nor does it imply that those
people _should not be taken seriously_. Debate them on the merit of their
position instead, either you or they may be enlightened.

------
aabbcc1241
I agree it in general. There's a workaround for affected people

> fmad89: DOCS LIVES MATTER!

Once it's alive, it's immortal on web archives. e.g.

[https://web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org)

[https://archive.is](https://archive.is)

------
staticassertion
> Do they think that democrats are more left leaning and thus supportive of
> open source than republicans?

Is this satire? I'm blown away otherwise.

No, this is not what they think, obviously.

The call is for developers to recognize the potential for abuse of the
software they write, to use their means and their platforms to speak out
against oppression, and to generally not be huge pieces of shit under the
guise of purported software neutrality.

This post is extremely low quality. It lacks meaningful content, is basically
just a "SJWs are ruining open source!" rant, and is poorly edited. I think
this has no place on HN.

------
or29544
The user could be China's secret service. The Pentagon with a new mind control
hack. You can't be apolitical, sorry. You have to stand for somethind and Open
Source stands for equal access rights. Yes you can have no opinion in other
matters excepting "equal access rights" but it's getting harder and harder to
do so.

------
eesmith
Free software is decidedly a political movement.

"open source" started in the 1990s, not as "an attempt to escape the clutches
of proprietary and monopolistic companies like Microsoft and Apple" but as a
way to make the source code part of the free software movement more palatable
in proprietary and monopolistic companies like Microsoft and Apple.

And the GNU project started in 1983, before Microsoft or Apple had anything
like their current influence. Apple didn't ship the first Macintosh until
1984, for example, and the Apple ][ opened computing domains far unlike the
walled gardens outside of microcomputing.

If you go into open source to make the world a better place, then that's a
political statement. Which might also explain why some open source programmers
consider that open source development might not be the only way to make the
world a better place.

There are of course other reasons that people go into open source. My
statement is that there's no clear and obvious separation between the two.

~~~
benjaminjosephw
I think a lot of people read "political" as a synonym of "Partisan" and use
that as a filter (or maybe excuse?) to not engage meaningfully with the
content of the discussion.

Any activity related to changing or reinforcing the balance of power in a
society is a political action as is any effort to prevent injustice. Free
software is a movement to give more power to users and so is, by definition, a
political movement

------
s9w
These events are good for one thing though: expanding your own personal
blacklist of companies, organizations, people etc. Like Sony being openly
racist and tripling down on that.

~~~
0xy
Do people actively do this? My politics are so "off-center" that I'd starve to
death in the street if I only associated with people and companies whom I
agreed with politically.

How do you even keep track? If someone asked me the political stances of my
closest colleagues or largest software partners I couldn't even tell you.

~~~
s9w
There was a time when companies were just companies and politically neutral.
That was truly a good time. If they play this misguided game I think it's only
fair to punish them. It's just baffling that even the giants do this - Coca
Cola Germany or Siemens as examples.

~~~
eesmith
Okay, I'll bite - when was this time? Because I can't think of any.

Consider how many companies were not politically neutral on the issue of
worker's rights and unionization. Or neutral on employing members of the
Communist party.

Or, quoting
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_American_newspapers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_American_newspapers)
\- "The Republican party was especially effective in building a network of
newspapers in major cities to broadcast its statements and editorialize in its
favor."

That certainly sounds like the newspaper companies of the early 1800s weren't
politically neutral.

~~~
s9w
Well newspaper companies are kind of special, no? They very often have vocal
and official slants.

But I think it's questionable if beverage or kitchen appliance companies
should align themselves with a political party. That will by definition
alienate some customers. And historically I have a hard time of seeing this
prior to the last 10 or so years.

~~~
eesmith
That was simply the clearest, least controversial example I could think of.

I seemed to have missed this controversy - what are you talking about with
beverage companies aligning themselves with a political party?

In any case, Coors seems like an appropriate historical example, what with the
Coors family involvement in CO and conservative politics, and the long boycott
against Coors - [https://www.cpr.org/2014/10/03/the-coors-boycott-when-a-
beer...](https://www.cpr.org/2014/10/03/the-coors-boycott-when-a-beer-can-
signaled-your-politics/)

