I think you will find I have not extrapolated it to the entirety of the FW community. Only an indication of this thread. Edit: I’d ask if possible to DM me for further queries on this. <3
or perhaps offer to make it better ^^
2 Likes
I want to clarify that I am not trying to attack or diminish what you have done. I will accept as correct the numbers that you have collected from the thread. I’m simply noting that what we see in this thread and this forum may or may not be representative of the overall population of people who own or are considering owning Framework machines.
I also will note that I have some familiarity with statistical methods but that I am by no means an expert in them. There very likely are those here, perhaps including you, who are much more knowledgeable in that area than I.
And I would like to acknowledge your effort and thank you for the contribution. Be well, and have a great evening!
4 Likes
I agree! 
I’m no expert as well and I’m certainly not paid to do this. But I can do grunt work. ^^
What I find qualitatively when reviewing the responses in the 600 posts, is that there were a lot more people who were against sponsorship who wrote longer more higher effort posts stating why this is concerning to them, talking about their love for the product, or having owned it before (in some cases multiple), and expressing that they don’t want to contribute to the harms they see. It’s not with hate that folks against sponsorship come to this, but disappointment because we wanted Framework to be better.
Now there might be few people who are like me who’ve admired Framework laptops from afar and would want to purchase them (either soon or in the future) who are disappointed and aren’t considering it as much anymore because of this. It’ll be interesting to see how many out of the 243 are prospective first time buyers as opposed to those who have already bought FW products.
I do recommend going through the thread. There are some really heartfelt comments. You can feel the sense of betrayal some of these FW owners feel and emphatise.
9 Likes
Thanks for the reply. I have read and followed the entire thread, from its inception. I read anarcat’s inital post, nrp’s reply, and have followed along the entire way. I do believe that most of the comments have been heartfelt and as I have stated previously in the thread I believe that all human beings deserve respect and love, no matter who they are, who they love, or what they believe, as long as they are not actively harming others or calling for others to be harmed. I still do believe that this thread has not been the finest moment for this community.
Edit to add - I have (I think?) made imaginary friends here, and I would be happy to share a meal, a drink, or to nerd out with anyone here. It’s really a great community, and I hope that it remains so.
6 Likes
Do you work with statistics much? While I appreciate the compilation of statistics on the responses, this doesn’t demonstrate anything regarding any overall point (i.e. how much of frameworks customer base does (not) support sponsorship of hyprland or promotion of DHH projects
The first thing I can think of is self selection bias being a problem
Ah, I see you responded to this elsewhere. Very well then. Thank you for acknowledging the deficits in extrapolating anything further.
While I certainly would not advocate for the dehumanization of immigrants/queer folk/minorities, I would caution you on becoming that which you fight against. Recall the first step is always to dehumanize others…deciding on the worth of others is implicit in that.
Might I suggest editing that particular phrase to read that arguing isn’t worth your time? Mostly the same message but without the placing of value in others
3 Likes
“117”
“great number”
117 is a tiny number compared to the number of people purchasing and using Framework. Just shows that it’s a tiny vocal minority causing an uproar over the support of OSS.
Framework would be best served by simply banning every person in this thread and moving on with their lives.
5 Likes
I certainly dabble. 
As I’ve said, I’m not making a point about the wider framework customer base. But forums are certainly a litmus test.
I was only speaking about this thread and that 75 out of 100 people do not support the sponsorship in this thread. The only extrapolation I’ve made is, that ratio is unlikely to change drastically, to speak of the full 243 unique members.
People who make low effort posts are not a marginalised or minoritised group unlike immigrants/queer folks and other groups. My advice to specific folks, to not engage with them because they’re not worth folk’s time, is not an indication of their worth as human beings to live free without hindrance or discrimination.
I hope that helps explain why I will not be changing the wording. xx
9 Likes
“arguing with them is not worth our time” is gentler than “they’re not worth out time”
edit to add - I often can be a real jerk. Hopefully not so much here, for whatever reason this community to date has brought out the best in me. I can accept that arguing with me when I am being a jerk is not worth a given person’s time, but I hope that I as a human being am worth their time, and that I am redeemable. We have had a good conversation here, and I value that, and your input. I fail far too often to be a better person, but I hope to be one, and I hope to encourage others to be one as well - which is not to say that you are not being one, but that words matter. I hope that I am not being too preachy, truly that is not my intention.
2 Likes
This is a useful article on tone policing that is pertinent to this. I hope it helps.
I appreciate your interest, but I will not be responding further on this line of thought.
7 Likes
Then consider the community guidelines you agreed to implicitly by posting here
I ask only that you respect the rules when posting. I have been disciplined before for not following them myself so it isn’t from some I’m holier than thou attitude here
3 Likes
Ok, now I am going to put on my jerk hat. Blanket assertions that given people are not worth our time are objectionable. I have no interest in reading some article about tone policing. I like this community, I want it to be a good one. I don’t know you, but I appreciate your contributions to this thread. Being called out for so-called tone policing is neither welcome nor appropriate. Have a good evening.
5 Likes
I’m sorry, but your objections to Olivia’s post were some of the most blatant tone policing I’ve ever seen. That goes for you too, GhostLegion. Saying you aren’t worth our time is not remotely comparable to dehumanization. I suggest you actually read the article instead of assuming it can’t possibly apply to you.
And calling someone out for tone policing is welcome and appropriate. You can’t have a safe community when members aren’t allowed to call each other out on stuff like this.
6 Likes
It was a simple comment to address the comments rather than the individual. If you consider that to be tone policing, so be it. I do not.
2 Likes
Had Hyprland had people like @GhostLegion and @lbkNhubert there in its community years ago, keeping tone in check and etc., maybe this thread would have been 50% of what it is.
2 Likes
Only if the moderators in that discord were amenable to such policing but it doesn’t seem they were at the time…
EDIT: It seems @lbkNhubert has given a more eloquent and better response than I.
1 Like
Thank you for your comment. I am no saint, and I try to value and consider everyone’s input. My intent is not anything more than to try to bring us all together (???) - I am not trying to admonish anyone. I am a highly flawed individual, I accept that. I hope that I am not making anyone feel bad or silencing them. That is not my intent. I am trying (and perhaps failing) to help to keep the conversation one that welcomes those with different points of view - with the understanding that there are limits - we all should respect one another. Those who wish harm upon others or work to cause others to do harm to others do not fall under that umbrella. To be clear, I would not assert that anyone here has done that (well, maybe some who have been banned, but not those continuing the conversation). Open for debate is whether some of those who are the points of discussion of this thread have done so, and I have not to my knowledge opined on that.
I do appreciate your comment and, though I am not a smart person, will assume that it means that we might have done some good in a different universe. I am happy to be corrected. I’m here to listen and learn.
3 Likes
I love how you cut out the part where Senhara says “per March 31st 2025 edit”, literally the sentence before, which is exactly my point: “Let’s give it a few years to see if those policies are meaningful”. People don’t have a change of heart like that in a couple months.
DHH posted more hot garbage about preferring AI slop over “human sludge” not even 4 days ago, and his very, very spicy hot take about white people being the only true native British was from not even a month ago. It doesn’t matter what Omachy’s and Hyprland’s CoC are. The USA have a nice piece of paper starting with “We, the people” that’s venerated by tons of folks over there, and it doesn’t prevent the current gov. from making a mockery of it.
If people like this have any significant involvement in those projects, and money given to those projects have a very high chance of ending up in their pockets then I think it’s unreasonable for Framework, as a business, to take a risk promoting and founding these projects; plain and simple.
6 Likes
@lbkNhubert @GhostLegion I was being a bit sarcastic, to be honest.
Of the overall message and posts around the matters under discussion, you both are making an oversized level of emphasis in a small area of provement of an overall positive and kind set of messages from a very constructive member.
It seems you don’t really have anything to counterpoint and you must focus the conversation on something that can be attacked, for it to be an argument for others.
I was pointing at your strawman.
3 Likes
Having now read the article, I’m certain it wasn’t tone policing
I’ll quote
In tone-policing someone’s speech, the tone-policer asserts at least three things to the speaker:
1. Their tone is too angry, aggressive, adversarial, emotional, upset, or heightened for this conversational context, and this represents a sufficient violation for intervention.
(No such assertion was made by me)
2. The tone violation endangers the conversation at hand, while a lowered tone does not – i.e. the discussion can and will go better without the speaker’s emotional expression.
(No such assertion was made by me)
3. The standard the speaker has violated is either the policer’s own sense of comfort and safety, or their [rightful] sense of propriety or civility; this is too much according to the policer (as a personal boundary or as a broader norm) and that too much alone makes the remark a conversational violation for which the speaker is accountable to the policer.
(Debatable but I’ll give it to you)
There was more in that article as well, please do go read it.
As for the point about not attacking the substance of what was said, could it be that maybe I agree?! At least with the broader argument that hate need not be platformed or even the appearance of such a thing by Framework. As I have said elsewhere, I’m not taking a position in this thread and flagging any problematic post regardless of the position taken. What the mods do is their business.
1 Like
Thank you for taking the time to reply and to clarify. I appreciate the poster’s contributions, and I hope that they continue to contribute. I certainly was commenting on a narrow point regarding addressing comments rather than individuals, and right or wrong, I stand by that.
I’m not here to point or counterpoint anything - although if we could riff back to Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtin, that could be entertaining. My only aim is to try in my own poor manner to help the community to continue to be a great one. If I am failing at that, it is my failure, and I accept that.
Edit to add - my comments regarding statistics were simply that one must be careful with the analysis of a given data set and what it may or may not more broadly represent. My comments regarding “worth our time” were simply that such comments are best directed at arguments rather than individuals. I am happy to be educated regarding why those comments might be inaccurate, unwelcome, or unhelpful.
1 Like