pleroma.debian.social

Statement on planned protests during the upcoming FOSDEM 2025 https://fosdem.org/2025/news/2025-01-16-protests/

@fosdem that’s… fair, but the question of the sponsorship part still stands.

(I’d also not want that person speaking on a FOSS event, but I’ll not be there to join the protest.)

@fosdem decent response but it's a crying shame it got here. hardly an unforeseen set of circumstances.

i genuinely do not, and cannot, believe you that this talk has been selected based on merit alone, however.

@fosdem
>Any claims that any talk was allowed for sponsorship reasons are false.

So other keynote submissions were even worse?

@fosdem Uh… protests are *supposed* to be disruptive. That's the *point*!

@mattcen @fosdem

If it is not disruptive, it is not a protest. Just an human idea advertising pavilion.

It is hard to allow disruption.

@fosdem Good luck with that. The talk description seems carefully FLOSScoded for an introduction to a new company. Whoever thought this was a good idea doesn't realise how destructive both blockchain and giving a platform to companies like Block is. Should big names leave responsible free software enthusiasts star struck? Tech is political and only naive people would allow an assault like this. Replace the talk with a 3 person discussion about why talks like this should/should not happen?

@delroth
The programme team (that decides what gets on the schedule) wasn't even aware they were a sponsor (who communicate with a different team) until this shitstorm, so yes, that's absolutely what happened.

You may not like the talk, but that's a different matter.
@fosdem
replies
1
announces
1
likes
3

@wouter @fosdem fair, I assume you're saying this with first or second hand knowledge so I'll retract (delete).

Yes, I think it's pretty obvious that many open source developers, me included, aren't particularly happy with giving such a prominent space to grifter billionaires. I would have thought this would be very obvious to the program committee at the point of making the decision...

@doctormo
There are different amounts of disruption though. This sounded like they were going to try to drown out the talk, even for people who were interested in what was going to be said, which, speaking only for myself, would be crossing the line.
@mattcen @fosdem

@doctormo @mattcen @fosdem

There's a useful conversation here.

Protests are supposed to be disruptive, but not preventative. the extinktion rebellion protests are a perfect example of protesting that hurts your cause. By upsetting regular joes who have no stance on your issues you are radicalising people against you

So in context, a protest that blocks a road for 20 minutes or so is a fair amount of disruption, whereas one that entirely stops a speaker or prevents people from making schedule significantly is probably too far. So to get the balance right is important; but disruptive is definitely a tertiary part of protesting (should never be the goal)

@freedomtux
@wouter

That is the centrist view of protest. Yes.

I'm not convinced that the balance is where either of you say it is. We have a long history of milktoast protesting doing absolutely nothing. But actual disruption effecting change.

Do you need to bring people with you? sure.

Do you need to cater to everyone there? Absolutely not.

The line must be crossed in order for a protest to be effective; people will be made uncomfortable and inconvenienced.

More road glue please.

@fosdem so besides being out of touch with the attendees, you are also out of touch with the term "protest"? "...not disrupt the proceedings", lol. I think that sit-in on stage is a stupid idea and I find Drew annoying as hell, but whoever invited and accepted Jack Dorsey to be the keynote of FOSDEM should immediately step down for their complete misunderstanding of open-source community and principles.

@chebra Apart from this sentence, I find this stance by @fosdem extremely fair and open.

I'd take the freedom to interprete "not disrupt the proceedings" as "be a targeted action at the specific criticised point", and not disrupt the rest of the conference or violate general security and fire safety measures.

@chebra @fosdem

Oh, and: I have actually not seen any controversy about Dorsey. On the contrary: My impression is that noone at all wants him on stage. At least I don't see a single post on the hashtag objecting the protest.

@doctormo @wouter

I agree with you more than I disagree

However — "The line must be crossed" is a poor perspective - which draws the line? What if the line is three steps more permissable - isnt crossing that line taking a mile for the inch you've been given?

This conversation is still relevant as to how it is punished. Gluing youself to a road is stupid and just a plain bad strategy. But it also shouldnt get much more than a night in the can (or sanding department) and a slap on the wrist

Australia's draconian reaction to these protests was a prime example of protesting being treated as a right for only "when its not too inconvenience" (and I protested the law when it came to my state - alongside a lot of college students I cant stand)

@doctormo @wouter tbh the biggest problem we face is the mainstream media.

It should be a rule of journalism all protests are covered proportionally to how many are at them. But instead protests are covered based on how the outfit agrees with them. This forces more radical propositions to be more aggressive and ultimately leads more disruption and violence in protests

@nik
Silent majority and all that 🤷
@chebra @fosdem

@fosdem It's not mentioned, but I have a suspicion which talk exactly do you mean.