I mean sure but… did you read the piece linked? It backs up it’s claims. Not gonna sit here and act like I verified every single thing linked in the piece but I checked a good handful and it seems pretty straightforward. FUTO is pretty sketchy at the very least, and there’s good reason to consider them a fascist org
I’m not sure what “piece linked” you’re talking about, since none of the parent comments of this comment actually have a link in them.
This is the first time I’ve ever heard of FUTO, but I did read their statement about open source and it sounds pretty good to me. I actually think they’re capitulating a little bit too much by deciding not to call it open source anymore. As far as I’m concerned, if the source is available and anyone can contribute, that’s open source. I don’t particularly care whether or not it’s free for Google to incorporate it into their increasingly-enshitified products or not.
Creative Commons (an org to which FUTO says they have donated) doesn’t like their licences being used for software, presumably for finicky technical legal reasons. But if you imagine the broad spirit of their licences applying to software, all the main CC licences would be open source in my opinion. All combinations of Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share Alike, and No Derivatives, as well as CC0 respect the important elements of open source.
Yes I read it when it first came out, and again after a recent update. It’s very opinionated and I remain unconvinced the criticisms amounts to very much. At the least, certainly not to the point where words like nazi and fascist should be thrown around!
For example, I dislike Yarin’s and Lunduke’s politics but I did at least watched Yarin’s interview. (Did you? It was boring, and entirely tech-oriented, nothing controversial at all.) But… trial by association I guess. And anyway, it’s not the article itself I have a problem with - it’s the borrowing of second-hand opinions as if they should be your own. Sometimes, it’s prudent to reserve judgement (until ‘verifying every single thing’), or criticise specific ideas, without leaping to ad hominem per consortium.
My read is that FUTO as a software movement is totally fine, it does what it claims on the tin. The people behind FUTO are a different story, and the main person bankrolling it seems to have friends with odd views (I think they’re blown out of proportion, but they’re still concerning).
You’ll never find a perfect movement. Here’s what FUTO seems to prioritize:
local first alternatives to big tech
source availability, but in a way big tech can’t use but home users can
profitability for devs without coercion or feature gates
That sounds pretty good to me! I’d prefer it to be FOSS, but allowing me to distribute modifications for non-commercial use is probably good enough for most things.
I probably disagree with their founder politically, and I’d run FUTO differently, but I think their software is good and I could maintain it myself if needed, and at the end of the day, that’s what matters to me.
FUTO doesn’t seem interested in getting involved in politics, they’re merely musing philosophically, and their products aren’t profitable, so it doesn’t really matter to me what their political positions are.
No, that’s not fascist. Facial recognition software can be used for a variety of reasons, like unlocking a phone or laptop, gaining access to secure areas, or home automation stuff.
It’s only fascist if used by a government to oppress minorities. The software itself cannot be fascist, but it can be used by fascists.
The fault lies with the makers and users of the softeware. Software doesn’t have political opinions, it’s software.
It’s like saying Panzer tanks were fascist because they were built by the Nazis. Tanks cannot be fascist, they’re tanks. So despite being made and used by fascists, they’re not fascist, they’re tanks.
That’s the same exact thing here. Facial recognition software can be used by fascists, but that doesn’t make the software itself fascist.
The other person deleted their comment so I can’t really know what the argument was, but I would like to make a distinction:
While tools cannot be political themselves, tools can lend themselves to specific political purposes.
A tank cannot itself be fascist, but it can make fascism more viable. Surveillance software cannot be political, but it is easily abused by fascists to destroy political opposition.
What matters is the harm and benefits. Is the harm caused by the tool justified by it’s benefits? Or are the primary use cases for the tool to prop up fascism?
(I suspect that “authoritarianism” would be a better term to use here, but I’m continuing the theme of the thread)
I mean sure but… did you read the piece linked? It backs up it’s claims. Not gonna sit here and act like I verified every single thing linked in the piece but I checked a good handful and it seems pretty straightforward. FUTO is pretty sketchy at the very least, and there’s good reason to consider them a fascist org
I’m not sure what “piece linked” you’re talking about, since none of the parent comments of this comment actually have a link in them.
This is the first time I’ve ever heard of FUTO, but I did read their statement about open source and it sounds pretty good to me. I actually think they’re capitulating a little bit too much by deciding not to call it open source anymore. As far as I’m concerned, if the source is available and anyone can contribute, that’s open source. I don’t particularly care whether or not it’s free for Google to incorporate it into their increasingly-enshitified products or not.
Creative Commons (an org to which FUTO says they have donated) doesn’t like their licences being used for software, presumably for finicky technical legal reasons. But if you imagine the broad spirit of their licences applying to software, all the main CC licences would be open source in my opinion. All combinations of Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share Alike, and No Derivatives, as well as CC0 respect the important elements of open source.
Yes I read it when it first came out, and again after a recent update. It’s very opinionated and I remain unconvinced the criticisms amounts to very much. At the least, certainly not to the point where words like nazi and fascist should be thrown around!
For example, I dislike Yarin’s and Lunduke’s politics but I did at least watched Yarin’s interview. (Did you? It was boring, and entirely tech-oriented, nothing controversial at all.) But… trial by association I guess. And anyway, it’s not the article itself I have a problem with - it’s the borrowing of second-hand opinions as if they should be your own. Sometimes, it’s prudent to reserve judgement (until ‘verifying every single thing’), or criticise specific ideas, without leaping to ad hominem per consortium.
As far as I can tell the worst thing they did was call their source available license open source, which isn’t even that bad.
My read is that FUTO as a software movement is totally fine, it does what it claims on the tin. The people behind FUTO are a different story, and the main person bankrolling it seems to have friends with odd views (I think they’re blown out of proportion, but they’re still concerning).
You’ll never find a perfect movement. Here’s what FUTO seems to prioritize:
That sounds pretty good to me! I’d prefer it to be FOSS, but allowing me to distribute modifications for non-commercial use is probably good enough for most things.
I probably disagree with their founder politically, and I’d run FUTO differently, but I think their software is good and I could maintain it myself if needed, and at the end of the day, that’s what matters to me.
FUTO doesn’t seem interested in getting involved in politics, they’re merely musing philosophically, and their products aren’t profitable, so it doesn’t really matter to me what their political positions are.
deleted by creator
Software can’t be fascist, it’s just software. The makers or users can be fascist though. If that statement was true, Lemmy would be tankie.
deleted by creator
No, that’s not fascist. Facial recognition software can be used for a variety of reasons, like unlocking a phone or laptop, gaining access to secure areas, or home automation stuff.
It’s only fascist if used by a government to oppress minorities. The software itself cannot be fascist, but it can be used by fascists.
deleted by creator
The fault lies with the makers and users of the softeware. Software doesn’t have political opinions, it’s software.
It’s like saying Panzer tanks were fascist because they were built by the Nazis. Tanks cannot be fascist, they’re tanks. So despite being made and used by fascists, they’re not fascist, they’re tanks.
That’s the same exact thing here. Facial recognition software can be used by fascists, but that doesn’t make the software itself fascist.
The other person deleted their comment so I can’t really know what the argument was, but I would like to make a distinction:
While tools cannot be political themselves, tools can lend themselves to specific political purposes.
A tank cannot itself be fascist, but it can make fascism more viable. Surveillance software cannot be political, but it is easily abused by fascists to destroy political opposition.
What matters is the harm and benefits. Is the harm caused by the tool justified by it’s benefits? Or are the primary use cases for the tool to prop up fascism?
(I suspect that “authoritarianism” would be a better term to use here, but I’m continuing the theme of the thread)
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Hahah you mean like Lemmy itself?
deleted by creator