this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2025
406 points (83.7% liked)
Technology
75947 readers
2990 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
100% agreed. Just accepting business from an "out and proud" fascist, even if the task you were doing for them was community service, could be normalizing their "brand" enough that it's not worth doing. Selling ad space/time is also very questionable; tho, you might offset that with bumpers that let people know you what you actually think of the persons that bought the ad. Nuance is the rule, and two people that agree on moral principles might still do the moral calculus for any particular trade differently.
But, I don't think we need to (e.g.) add field of endeavor restrictions to our software licenses just to deny bad actors the same access we give to all other users/distributors universally. I don't think morally repugnant persons should be left out of food or housing programs or UBI. The fact that morally disagreeable people can buy a Framework is totally immaterial. The fact that among all the (nigh innumerable) software projects that Framework uses, they choose to directly support one (or more) where the people taking control of those resources are morally disagreable is a concern.