Sponsoring openly racist people is an active political stance, regardless of the technology they create.
Framework has decided to make a political statement in support of fascism.
There is no neutrality when it comes to this. It’s either for fascism, or against it.
Not everyone looks thru the nazi-glasses. Some people choose sanity.
Well @jared_kidd, surprise surprise, not everybody having a Framework or thinking about buying one has an account here.
The question remains : why, of all OSS projects Framework supports, the Framework CM chooses to post so much about the projects that have an edgelordy / far-right leader ?
Pretty disappointing of @nrp, trying to dodge the bullet and disappearing in a smoke cloud. If we agree on 95% and disagree on the intolerant 5%, then i guess you’re part of the intolerant 5%. Weird flex.
People struggle so much to see that this Framework project is bloody political. I bought my 13 not because is was cheaper (it was not), not because it was the best (it was not), but because i believe that we have to reduce the amount of trashed electronics, to hopefully have a sensible effect on our only planet.
Is it so hard to say “we were not aware of these persons behaviors and political stances, their views do not align with Framework’s” ?
It’s not about changing someones mind, it’s literally about promoting and actively contributing towards
And the expectations that everyone in the Linux community should be OK with this. No problem with Omarchy, Hyprland. Just with that, my money and or my time spend to framework is sent into a direction I completely disagree with. A direction Framework was not facing until recently.
What are you talking about, the existence of framework itself is a political statement.
I spent the whole weekend showing off Framework 12” and 13” on a conference, recommending to curious attendees. Finding out that some of money from me as a framework owner and anyone I convinced to buy one go to people who speak against my human rights is quite terrible, why should I ignore that?
DHH literally quotes Great Replacement conspiracy theory - Wikipedia in his blog. So, tell me how someone mentioning “White nationalist, far-right conspiracy theory” in a blogpost complaining about foreigners in London is “nazi-glasses”? If it quacks like a duck…
PSA, since many people seem confused: when you purchase goods and services and hand over money to the supplier in exchange, that money is thereafter /no longer yours/. What happens to it after that is neither your concern nor responsibility. The last time you get to decide what to do with it is when you choose the supplier. Act accordingly.
Plenty of brand spanking new accounts here defending the racism too. As a queer computer toucher, who’s had an account here for a few months (I bought a FW12 which I’m now regretting) and tried to help debug the FW12 lid sensor and rotation issue, how are you going to invalidate my voice?
I’m disappointed in the response to the concerns people have raised. I don’t think that working with DHH can, at this point, be justfied. He has recently posted a blog post that makes it clear that he does not consider non-white British citizens to be British. He’s expressed support for very extreme far-right figures in the UK who are well outside the realm of normal political discourse, who make it their job to incite racial hatred. People who advocate for deporting British citizens from the UK because of their religion or the colour of their skin.
I do hope you’ll reconsider your approach to funding projects going forward. It is not a neutral act to fund those with utter disregard for the human rights of huge groups of people. This is not a matter of normal political disagreement. I would not be concerned by Framework funding something run by political conservatives. I am concerned by Framework funding people who want to ethnically cleanse my country.
I like my Framework 13. But right now, I’ll not be getting another when the time comes, or recommend them to friends and corporate buyers. I’d love to be able to change that stance, and I’ll be very eager to see a more considered response from Framework on this issue.
I think you are contradicting yourself here.
It sounds to me that you are trying to change FW’s mind about who they contribute to and how they make that decision.
You’ve disqualified yourself from this discussion by linking to wikipedia. Have a nice day
As a Framework customer, I would like to express my support for NOT funding & promoting such projects.
Real-world US/UK/… politics aside, projects such as Hyperland are hindering the wider ecosystem by not wanting to collaborate with other open-source projects and alienating them. This is the same thing that happened with BCacheFS in the Linux Kernel: being hostile to your environment (i.e. not following commonly accepted guidelines & disrupting commonly accepted workflows) will lead to projects being abandoned by said environment, which will hurt users in the long run. DHH seems much the same, with the way the Ruby project has been going lately.
We’ve seen many such cases of project choosing their own path rather than keeping a healthy relationship with their community, and it has never ended well (see Redis, the examples listed above, and so on). As a Framework customer, I do not like the company using what was once my money to fund projects that are inevitably doomed to fail, due to lack of cooperation, and people that alienate others by the way they work. Open-source maintainers & contributors are often over-worked and underpaid, and those who give them even more trouble by not following the ways the wider community works, being condescending/mean/a nuisance to them, should not be funded further. And this seems to be very much the case of Hyperland & its developer (which, AFAIK, was banned from the freedesktop.org community), and DHH, which contributed to Ruby’s packages’ current maintenance issues.
With that said, real world politics are very much a thing, and impacting our every day lives, and as such also matter in such a discussion. The fact that figures such as DHH have generally openly hostile political views, and express a disdain for people they don’t consider similar enough to themselves is also clearly an issue (see DHH’s own blog if you want to hear about that, and the link in the OP which analyses and explains the problematic views DHH holds), and further proof they should not be funded to work on open-source software. Such work requires collaboration between many people, of various nationality & backgrounds, and if one is not ready to put up with the diverse people making up this world, they will inevitably alienate part of the community.
As a part-time KDE contributor, I much appreciate the KDE community’s stance on welcoming diversity & minorities, and this stance seems to clearly work, as that community has been building open source software for decades and is still going strong. And I think it’s only through fostering diversity & inclusivity that we will have a strong FOSS space that not only matches big tech solutions in features, but surpasses them in was traditional corporate projects & very mono-cultural structures can’t even imagine.
TL;DR: Open-source development is done by many diverse people. Let’s not welcome people who are hostile to this diversity, as diversity a key part of what makes us better than big tech.
Politics aside, that’s framework’s choice and burden to collaborate with them
There is no mind here, Framework is not a person.
What I try to, is to show how deeply I care about this company and how much I love my product made by them.
Nobody is threatening Framework except Framework, supporting people who clearly shouldn’t be.
FW could be better.
Thanks @anarcat, something to think about.
After giving it some thought, I think it’s important for what purpose the money was sent. I presume it’s not to further their leader’s political beliefs, but to support the good work that those projects do and encourage hardware support for Framework.
For example, I don’t know whether the CEO of a gym chain I go to wants me dead/deported, but I’m still giving the company money in exchange for service that I find valuable.
I think, there should be tolerance built-in to those systems, because if we get to the end game of what you’re asking - the cancel culture - we will only see more siloing and more radicalization. In fact, I’d say we’re pretty near to the end game right now already…
Edit: how much tolerance - that’s for sure a question.
We are customers voicing our opinion. We just lay out what kind of values we expect from this company. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
Yes, but I’m using their product, so that’s because of my money, and the money of many people like me, that they’re able to fund those projects. As I agree with their broader goal of making repairable computers, and providing alternatives to big tech, I feel like I should make my voice heard when they’re acting in ways I dislike, and that make me reconsider purchasing from them again
If i found out that the owner of my gym is a fascist, i would of course cancel that subscription and find a new one.
Yes, sometimes you can’t know, that’s just how the world works. As soon as you do know, you should make your choices based on all the available information though.
The question is more like this: would you keep giving the company the support of your money once you know they’ll use it to harm you and your loved ones? 
I may have a slight doubt that you’re truly honest with me if you tell me yes.
As for the question about « how much tolerance », well… I can guess where this question goes.
