On Friday, January 31, 2025 12:33:39 PM MST Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 02:25:19PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote: > > On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 at 13:08, Roberto C. Sánchez > > <[1]robe...@debian.org> > > > > wrote: > > Since we as a project have left Twitter/X (as recently announced by > > our > > Publicity Team) on the basis of "We do not want to be present in a > > place > > where we cannot ensure that users will be respected and where abuse > > happens without consequences" [0] [1], I would like start a > > discussion > > about how we as a project can promptly sever ties with Google. > > > > Full disclosure: I am currently employed by Google, and do not speak > > for > > the company. > > DFSG #6 discusses not discriminating against fields of endeavour. > > I can see the project wishing to cut ties with a social media platform > > that is unable to ensure a minimum level of civil discourse. I'm not > > seeing how this is even remotely equivalent to disengaging from a > > corporate sponsor because of their commercial practices? > > regards > > Andrew > > The formula I am applying here is directly: > > "We do not want to be present in a place where we cannot ensure that > users will be respected and where abuse happens without consequences." > > "We [Debian] do not want to be present in a place [on Twitter/X] where > we cannot ensure that users will be respected and where abuse happens > [causing certain people to feel unsafe] without consequences > [moderation/banning]." > > It seems quite natural, then, that this follows: > > "We [Debian] do not want to be present in a place [Google Cloud Platform > and other Google services] where we cannot ensure that users will be > respected and where abuse happens [directly assisting the US government > to prepare and execute missions that result in unconscionable civilian > casualties] without consequences [legal reprecussions]." > > If the former results in leaving a social media platform, then the > latter should result in at least the same (leaving the platform and > services) and, I would argue, also calls for terminating the sponsor > relationship. To do otherwise would be to tacitly endorse things that > are objectively far worse than things we have *already* publicly stated > as a project we find reprehensible. > > Regards, > > -Roberto
This is a good example of a slippery slope logical fallacy. A -> B =/= A -> B -> C Twitter's poor moderation -> Debian stops accepting support =/= Google provides service to US military -> US military does ... -> Debian stops accepting support from Google To break out of a slippery slope, remove the extraneous variables: B -> C US military does ... -> Debian stops accepting support from the military Google's job is to provide a service to anyone who has the money to give. If Google denies service to the US military, the US military would just move onto another of many cloud platforms and nothing will change. Sure someone somewhere in the US military might think is it really worth it but before that happens Google must ask themselves is it really worth it. On the other hand if Google comes out and openly supports the actions and ethos of the US military, then that would be a different story. -- Dovenchiko
