673
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 8 points 3 months ago

Oh No ! Leopards Ate My Face.

Better off in the long run.

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 79 points 3 months ago

This is not an example of leopards eating someone's face. Unless those projects threw their support behind Trump's admin, and I have no reason to believe they did, this is simply falling victim to fascist idiots.

[-] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 20 points 3 months ago
[-] tetris11@lemmy.ml 37 points 3 months ago

Uhh.. these projects are the backbone of the free and modern web. How is less funding a good thing?

Not the one you answered to, but I think I can understand the idea of US funding having been a toxic source of dependency, and it being better in the long run to get money elsewhere. That "elsewhere" is a good question, though.

Just me, personally, my dream would be an international fund, carried by the UN or maybe an independent NGO, that can get funding from both private and public funds, that prioritises free internet access the way the WHO prioritises health. But I think that's still far off.

[-] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 months ago

US funding having been a toxic source of dependency, and it being better in the long run to get money elsewhere.

Yup, pretty much my intent, that and the insecurity it engenders, rather surprised by the reaction.

[-] eldavi@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago

the reaction makes sense; these organizations are modeled after for-profit corporations since that's where most of its leaders come from and oriented towards simpler modes of funding like the american gov't; this is effectively a disaster for this sort of posture and it's hard from them to imagine any other form.

[-] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

long run

This is the crux of the problem when losing funding like this

[-] matengor@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Isn't the OTF already an NGO that can receive funding from different sources?

Kind of, I wouldn't really call them an international organisation in the way I would be imagining, see how easy it was to cut their funding when national interests turned openly fascist. Their affiliation with the US government above more independent, international organisations meant, that they would support privacy and a free and open internet, as long as it helps dissidents in other, non-aligned countries, but quick to cut it, if it reaches their own doorsteps.

[-] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 8 points 3 months ago

Not sure if this is meant here, but shockingly many people believe that "funding" something equals to "controlling" it.

[-] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 months ago

many people believe that “funding” something equals to “controlling” it.

Pretty much the definition of soft power, which an awful lot of politicians believe in.

[-] SufferingSteve@feddit.nu 1 points 3 months ago

For a good reason

[-] chebra@mstdn.io 1 points 3 months ago

@thingsiplay It does, if it turns into dependence. Look at Mozilla.

[-] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 2 points 3 months ago

Mozilla was not controlled by Google.

[-] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 months ago

Not a good thing, just an inevitable one, as they conflict with the interests of the US (oligarchs and techbros).

[-] chebra@mstdn.io 17 points 3 months ago

@MalReynolds Are you saying F-Droid, TOR, Tails or Let's Encrypt supported Trump? I'd like to read more about that.

[-] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 months ago

How could you read it that way ? I'm saying eventually they were going to conflict with the interests of the US (oligarchs and techbros) and lose funding. Shocker, it happened under cheeto.

[-] chebra@mstdn.io 13 points 3 months ago

@MalReynolds Leopards eating faces implies that they voted for the Leopards. But ok, issue clarified, all good.

[-] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 months ago

Yeah, I have a broader view of the phrase, which includes complacency (not actively working at alternatives) as well as just voting, seems most agree with you.

[-] Harvey656@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Having a broader view of a phrase just means you didn't understand the phrase. It's okay to admit that.

this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2025
673 points (100.0% liked)

Open Source

39440 readers
741 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS