The Open Source Community is Neither "Open" nor a "Community"

Other words that don't describe the Open Source World: Free, Democracy, Welcoming, Inclusive, Honest.
More from The Lunduke Journal:
lunduke.com

[@lutumfamiliaris7287]

Hello. Rotten flesh here. As a long time openSUSE user my heart is broken to know what happens behind the curtains. It very much looks like there is nowhere to flee because all of this will spread. This development is happening throughout the whole society, not just software or entertainment world. This is a collapse of our semi-civilized society. Rome is falling.

[@betapacket]

Hi, Rotten flesh! I am also Rotten flesh. I don't agree or promote transgenderism because I believe in basic DNA science. Rome is falling.

[@411DL]

@@betapacket And I don't promote any of this not only because I don't agree with it, but I just don't want to be told what I need to be passionate about in order to be a decent human being. Linux used to be here for those of us who ultimately wanted to be left alone. Instead, Rome is falling.

[@DTQC]

It happens because most people don't speak out.

[@Scops96]

Stallman was right when he said that "open source" is a false flag

[@shallex5744]

it's a co-optation of the already-existing free software movement, specifically created because they disagreed with their principles of freedom. it is quite literally a negative movement

[@joshallen128]

@@shallex5744 two licenses i know of are osi certified and not free

[@whig01]

Stallman had his unfortunate issues as well though. I don't even believe in licenses or corporations.

[@user-eg6nq7qt8c]

​@@shallex5744 It was an understanding that Stallman's dream was an impossible utopia.

[@shallex5744]

@@user-eg6nq7qt8c thanks in part to open source for helping facilitate its impossibility

[@Joe-c1y9d]

The power in open source isn't My ability to tell creators what to do, The power is the ability to take the creations and do what I want to do with it. Regardless of what companies might call themselves if their software doesn't meet that description it's not open.

[@davidpaulos2943]

In a few years i have seen everything i liked going woke, communist or insane... In a few years i have seen lunduke who was one of the most positive people i have ever seen look sadder and sadder... Fuck man...if they instead of politics focused on software we could have overtaken windows 10 or 11...but such is life...i am sooo done with this world...

[@NotMarkKnopfler]

Yep. I need a log cabin in the mountains with NO internet connection!

[@survivor303]

problems started appearing when normies get access to internet. i haven't ever seen a woke fights in the bbs or usenet times.

[@lutumfamiliaris7287]

I could not agree more. I'd just like to add one more word to the list: feodalist. I feel like a peon as an ordinary user.

[@SosumiInc]

Do you realize Microsoft is fueling this front in the War on Linux yet? Has the lack of overtaking Win10/11 shown you what the actual war looks like? How about the funding of the Linux Foundation? How about Microsoft's role in the Linux Foundation? How about Microsoft secretly funding all the Steam competitors because they chose Linux?

[@HeyBuddays]

He's older but he doesn't look sad. He is seeing the absurdity of this world and laughing at it.

[@derstreber2]

OpenAI is just as open as the "Open source community", change my mind.

[@AllLogarithmsEqual]

Well, their source code is private, is it not? That seems like a pretty big distinction. Also, not all projects require the same computing power that AI often requires, so it is easier for individuals to fork the genuinely open-source projects.

[@Trahloc]

@@AllLogarithmsEqual not only is their source code private. How they gathered their training data is. How they did the actual training. Pretty much every single thing that could be used to reproduce their work is behind closed doors. The only thing open about them is their storefront.

[@d3stinYwOw]

Currently Meta is much more open than OpenAI. Change my mind.

[@sobieckil07]

​@@d3stinYwOw No need, it's a factually true statement.

[@TheInfinityReaper]

The only thing this company is open about, is open for business.

[@wisnoskij]

And dont get me started on "The"

[@collection6062]

whats that?

[@wisnoskij]

@@collection6062 The video talks about how "The Open Source Community" is not "Open" or a "Community". I was making a joke about how arguing that the "The" in that phrase is not even correct.

[@tonnylins]

Stallman was right all along.

[@rch6]

So what should be done instead? What should be the alternative name we should use for "FOSS?" (I admit that I don't know much....)

[@maxsievers8251]

​@@rch6We talk about free software.

[@unpotatoedsalmon]

Libre Software

[@rch6]

@@unpotatoedsalmon Or free software. Thanks for replying.

[@NotMarkKnopfler]

When someone says "They might vote for Trump so they shouldn't be allowed..." it just makes me want to vote for Trump. And I'm not even American!

[@brostoevsky22]

Honestly, Trump will do nothing to improve the lives of his supporters. He will become a part of the swamp like everyone else. Only the optics of the whole thing will change. But whatever floats your boat.

[@haroldcruz8550]

Wouldn't really matter because whoever becomes POTUS serves AIPAC, the people that are really calling the shots.

[@kpcraftster6580]

And that's how they get you: it's the same 💩 in a different jacket. There's nothing to choose between Biden, Trump and Kennedy - a DINO, a RINO and a LINO - they only differ in the details.

[@NotMarkKnopfler]

@@haroldcruz8550 agree 👍

[@Redman8086]

@@haroldcruz8550 not wrong.. lol

[@JohnDoe-ip3oq]

The only thing open is the source code. The "community" isn't about the users, because if it was they'd take feedback and try to better compete with Windows, and instead it's all about corporate use cases. That's why it took Valve to do ANYTHING about making the OS viable. 99% of distros are unusable as a desktop OS compared to Windows, which is likely influenced by Microsoft controlling large parts of Linux. Embrace, extend, extinguish.

[@user-eg6nq7qt8c]

I'd argue that the problem with Linux Desktop has been more about lack of driver support from hardware manufacturers.

[@sobieckil07]

​@@user-eg6nq7qt8c That's largely in the past, though. I have relatively modern computer set up, and none of the parts were picked up with Linux compatibility in mind, except for Radeon graphics card. Everything works just as well under Linux as it does under Windows, the printers, WiFi card, webcam... Drivers cannot be used as an excuse anymore

[@seancollins9745]

that's because a large percentage of linux devs are elitist jackasses who want to wall the garden off from the normies, because they are superior to the normies. Just read what they say, it's blaringly obvious

[@user-eg6nq7qt8c]

@@sobieckil07 I mostly agree but that past represents so much lost opportunity and mindshare. Linux is not on the minds of normal people that buy laptops and PCs. except for the small minority that value privacy and freedom over convenience. Linux still sucks for gaming compared to windows. Linux still sucks for music production and recording compared to Windows and Mac. You really have to want to make it work.

[@ashwinrawat9622]

After using linux for so long I feel windows is unusable for me. The 'unusable' word is highly subjective.

[@AllLogarithmsEqual]

A "community" is not the same as the large corporations and organizations that try to advertise, fund, and guide it. There are plenty of open-source projects that are welcoming; they simply do not get the same press attention that large projects do. As for political discrimination, well, yes, we're becoming too polarized as a society, so it's not that surprising that some of those divisions have become clear in the open-source world too. That's why I wish people would be more open-minded and willing to talk to people on the "other side."

[@r0ck3r4ever]

That is not possible, the more insane and extreme the behavior is, the more division you get. It is not a matter of taste right now, it's a matter of mental health.

[@solidandshade]

The world is a battlefield between Psychopats and Schizos. Day by day you are getting deeper into the second camp Bryan, the only side with the good guys.

[@asumazilla]

The democracy/voting comes when we decide which software to use only.

[@RaRd8z]

That's still not a democracy. Its a free market

[@CCJ1998]

It's the old devil you know vs. the devil you don't. Sometimes I just want to pull the plug and read a book or something, but I got to make money so into hell I go.

[@shlomobachar4123]

But how a project (software or any product) can be developed by "democracy"? As there should be some organizational process. Some hierarchically organized people. Some people should lead and take decisions.

[@COMB0RICO]

Looking forward to hearing this one.

[@zmeta8]

All contributors are equal but some contributors are more equal than others

[@octopusonfire100]

The Linux Foundation should be sued for false advertisement at this point.

[@Spartan322]

It seems to me that the more I live, the more obvious it starts to become to others around me that evil thrives when you compromise with it, the question then begs "but what is evil" and I see it as a clear indication that the Bible is clear.

[@javaman4584]

Ima gonna find me a thrift store and pick me up some slide rules and a Royal typewriter.

[@krisdabrowski5420]

In other words, monarchy is a natural law and and you cannot wish it away by just naming something hard enough.

[@ragingrat7670]

Monarchy no hierarchy yes. No it's just the weak and stupid who don't want to think or really work and the sociopaths and psychopaths who are more than willing to take that power and rule over them with an iron fist.

[@whig01]

So correct. Open source is I let you see my source and use it. I don't owe you shit.

[@nonenothingnull]

the funny part is still using corporations' mandated double speak despite all of this.

[@jhosuerui9806]

Well, the projects call themselves "Open source code", the only Open it's the code

[@northlandphoenix]

At some point, can you make a video on how it legally works where a company can donate to an open source organization which gives them control of the organizations direction, and then uses free labor to make the product that they control the direction of. Is there a distinction, where theres no boss telling you what to do, so you are not an employee, even if your work doesnt get utilized if it doesnt meet the directional goals of the for profit company.

[@Snufflegrunt]

The vocal powerful minority are the ones who keep Linux from becoming mainstream on the desktop. It could’ve been there 20 years ago.

[@DudeSoWin]

Linux the best Console: Not a Computer Linux the best Computer: Server not a PC Linux the best PC: Mobile not Desktop Linux the best Desktop: Desktop not Console.... Linux Steamdeck releases: A steam powered Console... the Valve logo is a piped measuring rod beaten in back of some dudes head.

[@northlandphoenix]

I think theres clearly an open source community where end users gather and contribute around open source projects. I think the value lies more in providing tech support for each other, which is a valuable effort. Like you mention, ita not an open community, as the project owners often control the forums and whatnot and can ban people they dont want in there. I think open source code has value in and of itself, even if the projects operate more like a company. Mostly i think the big issue is that the direction of the major players is still controlled by the donators of the money, which mostly is not us, but major corporations.

[@sn0n]

Remember the movie "anti-trust"? Sooo good ^>^ that's my community, we make out own community, it's our personal community.

[@joshmc5882]

A lot of open source projects are drinking the koolaid.

[@onkelfabs6408]

You didn't even mention that some open source software claims to be open source, yet they omit parts of their core logic and still claim all of it is open source.

[@worldhello1234]

Welcoming to whom? People who demand that others care about their favorite desktop environment of choice so much that they don't have to learn new things like e. g. the terminal and at the same time complain that there are "too many distros"? Even though the terminal condenses all those distros to a handful of distinct ones and unifies help. Inclusive to whom? The lowest common denominator? @2:24 Elitism is some smug douchebaggery, not simply competence. You can be the most competent smart working human being in the room but at the same time kind and humble. That is not mutually exclusive. 🙋‍♂

[@DMoRiaM]

The complex part is the Free Software Foundation receiving the blame for the mischief of the Open Source Initiative.

[@Ughmahedhurtz]

Doesn't this just reinforce the importance of actual enforceable GPLv2 type licenses?

[@kevingary7018]

Well we must admit Bryan is very open about his concerns facing the open source community. His concerns are similar to many other people. Politics suck, especially when they are on a much grander scheme. The utter most hypocrisy is found at the highest corporate, and governmental levels. No human effort will avail the draining of the swamp inside the Capitol Beltway. Does anyone really expect this effort to succeed inside the open source community? Unless a revolution occurs, the status quo will be maintained.

[@minementalx]

Never give up, always speak truth. They like to erase the truth and replace it with false narratives.

[@whig01]

@@minementalx That's exactly what they do, in fact they invert the truth.

[@ConMag-Fhionnghaile]

So open source is "Door source"? As in, you may be able to look inside, you might even be able to step inside, but there's a chance something's in a safe behind a painting that you don't have access to.

[@adancalderon8915]

There are some good points here, but you keep mentioning "Democracy" as if it is a good thing. Even the US Pledge Allegiance says we are a Republic. Did not Benjamin Franklin say "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote"

[@AllLogarithmsEqual]

There are reasonable concerns when it comes to Tyranny of the Majority. In government, I think it is important to strike a balance between the two extremes (the other being Tyranny of the Minority), and in the US, we desperately need more faithful representation of the people. Meanwhile, in open-source projects, we *could* try having more democracy, but that starts to become dangerous, because it could make projects vulnerable to "51% attacks" and disingenuous actors. Also it is funny that conservatives are now implying that we need more workplace democracy -- the same ideal espoused by left-wing socialists.

[@ragingrat7670]

@@AllLogarithmsEqual I haven't heard conservatives saying that. The only thing I've heard is more meritocracy and less discrimination.

[@digitalnomad9985]

Democratic election of representatives and officials in the Federal government and the requirement for the states admitted to have a representative form of government were just one among many, even if the most profound and radical, means of DISPERSING POWER. Often the the system of the US republic is compared unfavorably with a parliamentary system, for instance, on the grounds of efficiency. The parliamentary supposedly more rapidly implements the sense of the majority. Such critics are mistaking a means for an end. The founders of the US constitutional republic were concerned with dissipating power, of keeping it from being concentrated and thus facilitating tyranny. Democracy is just one, even if the most important and radical, of the means to this end. "Checks and balances" were placed throughout the system. Gridlock is a feature, not a bug. Democracy may well be necessary for freedom, but it is certainly INSUFFICIENT. That being said, it is absurd to berate anybody who refers to the US democracy, or discusses the democratic aspect of our government. Classifying the US and other Western nations under the generalization "democracies" is a useful and, as far as it goes, valid usage. For one thing, no 2 critics who dogmatically insist that the US be referred to exclusively as a "republic" and never as a "democracy" posit the same definition (if they posit any at all) of what "republic" means. Often, they are fuzzy on the definition of "democracy" as well. The term "republic" is better as a description of the US, but in some contexts, particularly when discussing voting, or grouping our closest allies by common values, democracy is an important concept. It is the left who are in the business of banning words.

[@kaustix852]

the irony with Linux is that Linus wanted to make a desktop OS. Now linux is kinda funded by big corporations to make Linux a better server os.

[@solbu-1973]

That is not correct. Linus specifically wanted UNIX at home, and he didn't want to pay 4 grand in order to get a single user UNIX license. The license Minix used at the time made it difficult to reach that goal, so he made his own Unix like OS and called it FreaX. It was one of his friends who came up with the name «linux» for the folder where the tarball was stored.

[@SosumiInc]

I got Bing's AI, with sufficient coaxing to produce the term "Open Source Polyarchy" as a sufficiently-descriptive replacement for "Open Source Community". I rather like the term.

[@prontomatias3081]

In Blockchain world folks talk alot about Governance, i wonder if it will work or get as plagued as open source.

[@jakobw135]

OPEN SOURCE refers only to the operating system, it's software, and the fact that you have access to it to modify or use how you wish. It has nothing to do with social and political and sexual abuse of the people in the organizations.

[@Arfonfree]

Democracy is not…or should not, be a goal. It is a tool. Properly used it can promote freedom, which is…or should be a proper goal. Improperly used democracy promotes the worst sort of tyranny. Anyway... I still like the Free Software Foundation.

[@FcBow]

I, for one, welcome the benevolent dictatorship of Linux Mint. They do great work!

[@kpcraftster6580]

Ew. A bad distro with bad documentation and bad support, made by bad people for bad people.

[@glowingone1774]

@@kpcraftster6580 sounds like skill issues on your part

[@friendlyfire7861]

James Lindsay calls this "the iron law of woke projection."

[@NINJABDUDE]

As long as people are able to fork, things will turn out well.

[@unpotatoedsalmon]

Hey has the void linux project said or done anything stupid

[@CrucialFlowResearch]

I've been saying for years that open source is not a community, but i got banned so you didn't hear me say it ~

[@rch6]

If it's not a community, if it's not open, if it's not free, if it's not open, what is it? What do we call it? I want to know.

[@CrucialFlowResearch]

@@rch6 the definition is releasing source code with a certain license, it has nothing to do with anything else

[@rch6]

@@CrucialFlowResearch So maybe we can call it "free source code," "open source code," or "free software?" Hmmmm Thanks for your reply. I love to bounce ideas off people.

[@rch6]

What do we call "open source" then? Any ideas?

[@friendlyfire7861]

19:00 I wish you would have said when "open source" was really coined and why they lie about it.... 🤔

[@ElMarcoh]

Dictatorship is not an accurate term to describe Corp/Org governance, the more correct term is Oligarchy, were shareholders and directors are the ones deciding, and ethics are bound to change when there are acquisitions and board changes (unlike a Dictatorship or other forms of Autocracy). OSS projects should strive for Meritocracy, I mean, there's nothing stopping someone forking a project if they are not happy with their views, and if they do a better job, they get to be the *better* project. The problem is when people *cry a lot* instead of *doing a lot* . Another wrong take here is that Community = Democracy, a lot of sects are communities and they are not democratic in any way, community means a sharing of something, so by definition communities are closed and by nature they have the right to exclude those who do not share the same ethics, religious communities are the best example, so I don't the the dishonesty here, rather a misplaced expectation for "democracy" where there is no democracy to be expected at all.

[@ragingrat7670]

When you say "cry a lot" what do you mean? Are you referring to this video?

[@ElMarcoh]

@@ragingrat7670 Not in particular. I'm referring to people who publicly criticize projects/community decisions when they actually don't have and never had any intention of contributing

[@ragingrat7670]

@@ElMarcoh Okay I just didn't understand. I didn't figure you were but referring to this video but I for the life me didn't know what you were meaning. Sorry if it came off as me accusing you of something.

[@Amipotsophspond]

Absolutely if you want to run this project as a Democracy that's no problem what so ever, just fork the project and your fork can be run any way you want!! this deals with political actors trying to take over your project just show them the wall of development, and encourage and even help them some to scale it. if they can't fork it and make it their own then it's not really a open source project is it.

[@bass69player]

I believe we need to go back to the "Shareware" model and abandon "Open Source." ;)

[@m4rt_]

9:15 Yes, The Linux Foundation only spends 2% on Linux Kernel support, but just looking at the percentage is ignoring some details, like the fact that the 2% is $7,804,150 (source: Linux Foundation annual report 2023) and as far as I know, that money is spent on paying the developers (among other things), and that money is more than enough for that. If you want to some context, here is an example of how many developers it would pay for: if each developer was paid $100 an hour (source: my ass), and worked every weekday for 8 hours, their yearly salary would be ca $208,000 which if that was the salary for every developer and all the money was just for salaries, that would be enough for ca 37,519.95 full time employed developers. Though some of that money is probably spent on infrastructure like the mailing lists, the websites, etc, but you get my point. I agree that The Linux Foundation should focus more on funding projects related to Linux, but complaining that they "only" spend 2% on Linux Kernel support is not something I agree with.

[@IronFractal]

7,804,150 / 100,000 = 78

[@beauneo]

Your math is as bad as your reasoning. Well done!!

[@thevocatiousunspeakables709]

Stop beating around the bush and own your opinions. The "I'm not saying the linux foundation not being open is a bad thing, but" isn't fooling anybody into thinking that you are now magically a neutral observer. If you don't like the linux foundation, just be frank about your opinions.

[@benjamindrexler9635]

He's trying to not impose his opinion, not hide it. He doesn't want viewers to feel attacked just because he disagrees with them.

[@denvernaicker8250]

100%

[@LokiScarletWasHere]

Within two minutes, possibly one, I already know we're playing word games here.

[@shaunpatrick8345]

If you like programming as a hobby there are many options for displaying your talent or providing useful software to people other than the open source arena. I prefer to publish working products in app stores, for example, rather than libraries or uncompiled projects on Gitlab (and I would not go anywhere near the more famous hub). I close source everything, because there's no reason no to, and I don't have to engage with anyone from toxic communities - other than to use the stuff they make, which would be a lot better if they were more inclusive.

[@flamesintheattic]

Do something an open source project doesn't like, however trivial, and find out how "open" they really are. It's just another grift for power. They are basically organized as fascist syndicalism with corporate tech bros at the top benefiting the most.

[@WolfsFriend42]

Why would anyone in their right mind support Linux?

[@Omnifarious0]

Because, despite the people involved, the license forces people's hand.

[@digitalnomad9985]

Because there has to be an alternative to Windows/Mac.

[@monterreymxisfun3627]

Thanks for the heads up. Just use it and don't contribute anything back.

[@Omnifarious0]

Nope. The real answer is to fork every project that refuses participation by the "wrong" people and make a version that welcomes participation by those people.

[@EasyMac308]

@@Omnifarious0 This only works if your fork is superior.

[@Omnifarious0]

@@EasyMac308 - You can keep pulling in from the other fork. And also, actually being truly inclusive, and allowing actual diversity of thought will eventually result in your project outpacing the competition. Especially if you just keep pulling in everything from the competition.

[@whig01]

Contribute back if you have something valuable to give back, and if they want to use it they can use your code too.

[@disconductorder]

whats with all the trans programmers is it some obsession with changing their own programming?

[@Kenbomp]

Instilled dictatorship hehe

[@zzco]

I would beg to disagree about "Open Source" not being open. Nobody ever said the world of open source software (I'll call it that for now), was always welcoming/inclusive or whatever. You go your own way. That doesn't necessarily mean YOU, Bryan Lunduke will always be welcome everywhere all the time. I try to take an open-minded approach, but that's just my two-cents on the subject, since it partly involves me. lol.

[@ezyrhino]

The problem with your point is why do they market themselves as "open", "inclusive", "welcoming", yada yada yada. They're the ones preaching it, but yet, they are the exact opposite.

[@whig01]

@@ezyrhino The entire leftoid agenda is truth inversion.

[@zzco]

@@ezyrhino It's cult-speak/newspeak. The code is open and available for you to use on your own and for your own purposes. I hate that it's come to this, but c'est la vie.

[@AllLogarithmsEqual]

@@ezyrhino I think there is a distinction to be made between small indie projects and the large companies that sponsor and advertise open-source. Projects like Sqlite have been "open-source but not open-contribution" for several years, and they admit as much on their website. It isn't news. The real meaning of open-source is that the source code is available (and often the license guarantees other rights, like the right to modify and redistribute, etc.). Everything else is decided by the project owners, just like in any private company.

[@ezyrhino]

@@zzco Sure, the code (if made available) is open source, but can you contribute or submit changes? Do they ban people for differing opinions (which most of the time have nothing to do with the project)? Also, Bryan's video isn't just about code, it's about the company as a whole and labeling themselves open source when the practices and policies they have in place are quite the opposite. I'm not naive either, I realize companies need to make money, I get it. But they need to be honest. Yes, c'est la vie, but we're just having a conversation, no worries.

[@MortalisPT]

This is all just like communism 😂

[@Redman8086]

Literally most of the free software community are commies lol. The ideology is unfortunately a good match. We are surrounded by crazies in this community.

[@digitalnomad9985]

Conservatives have no objection to people sharing things. We share things more than leftists. It's the coercion and confiscation we object to.

[@meskes4059]

Bruce created the OSI. I miss him

[@cbbcbb6803]

It all started when the pilgrims presumed to permanently move to and settle in someone else's country without getting their permission first before even setting sail across the ocean. Talking about elitists attitudes!

[@digitalnomad9985]

You're kidding, right? History didn't start with the fifteenth century Europeans. Aggressive acquisition didn't start with them either. Not even in the Americas. The genius of the West is we invented another way to prosper that nobody ever did before. It used to be that the only way to get ahead was to take stuff, particularly land, from others by force. By way of contrast, Protestantism created the modern libertarian west. We (Protestants) ended slavery; implemented religious freedom, political freedom, academic freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press FIRST, and thus caused the academic, scientific, technological, and material progress that followed; and most of the rest of the world hasn't caught up with it yet. John 8:32 "You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” Socialism is a reversion back to the old paradigm, take it by force.

[@adambester3673]

why do you act like political views have no consequences and nobody should judge people for having horrid views? political views are not an intrinsic unchangeable trait. if there is a group of people you want to join/ work with and you are openly advocating for or supporting politicians who are advocating for making the lives of some or all of the people in that group far worse why shouldn't everyone else in said group tell you to pound sand and kick you out?

[@sistemasrbija]

Adversely, they can tell you and your friends to go pound sand and kick you out. See how that works ? Do you really think that that's an acceptable way to treat anyone at all ?

[@anon_y_mousse]

In what way would they make their lives worse? For a baseline in this conversation, do you consider murder to be wrong and would you consider a government preventing the people from indiscriminately murdering others to be a necessary action of government? If you can honestly answer those questions without caveats and your answers are yes and yes, then we can talk further as I would know that you're a conscientious human who's only been misguided. If you have caveats or the answer is no to either, then I would have to disregard you as not being a human. Attempting to squirrel about the definition of murder is a caveat as we all intrinsically know the definition.

[@adambester3673]

@@sistemasrbija ah but see what if their political views are to tell me and my friends "to go pound sand" by taking our freedoms away or taking our right to vote away. kicking them out of our tiny work space may feel petty and mean but its far from the same consequences as actual politics can have. also right wing open source project runners have locked everyone they felt had leftist views out of their project before, they did what anyone would do in open source they forked it. that's how Prism launcher got made.

[@adambester3673]

@@anon_y_mousse yes and yes. i am not talking about taking the freedom of a want to be murderer away or the freedom of a slaver to keep and sell slaves away and using government force to do it. the people screaming about having their ability to oppress others taken away are generally my opposition. but say there is a work group working on some small foss project and some of the members are gay and you are known to have anti gay views and support a party trying to take all the rights they have gained in the last 30 years away from them, and so they just dont want to be around you and lock you out of working with them. wouldn't you say that's fair enough? its not like they took your rights away they just kicked you out of their group. fork it or find a project that doesn't have people you openly want to oppress in it. it was your choice to have and share those views in the first place, we have a secret ballot for good reasons you could have said nothing about politics in the first place and just gotten along. is it fair to tell people they are inferior and undeserving of their freedoms that do no harm to you and then complain that they dont want to be your friend anymore?

[@anon_y_mousse]

@@adambester3673 Now that we've established a baseline, how about answering the primary question of what rights you think are being taken away? Second of all, in what way do you think that your political opponents are oppressing you? Would you consider self defense a basic right innately shared by all living creatures and that removal of or inhibition of said right constitutes oppression? Would you consider it a right for children to be protected from mutilation of their minds and bodies?