US cuts funding to F-Droid, Tor Browser, Let's Encrypt and Tails Linux
US cuts funding to F-Droid, Tor Browser, Let's Encrypt and Tails Linux
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.abnormalbeings.space/post/952648
TEXT VERSION: https://thelibre.news/trump-cuts-funding-to-foss-projects/
You're viewing a single thread.
Urgh this is so backwards.
Governments need to fund more FOSS not less!
Hopefully the EU can increase its support to compensate.
Foss is free, and this guy is all about making the American people pay more money to his rich buddies
He's doing a suck job of it. The things he's gutting are pennies towards his dark-souled oligarch masters. Cutting small government projects like the NEA, PBS or like FOSS grants is only used as an appeal to fiscal responsibility conservatives that aren't willing to cut into old-people benefits like Social Security and military sacred cows. Not because gutting tiny projects does anything useful, rather it gives the vibe that representatives are doing something.
This is an appeal to the imbicile MAGA though the tech bros might have specific FOSS projects that compete with their own commercial offerings. Not enough to cut all FOSS grants, though.
In essence he's trying to bankrupt the whole country so he and his circle can buy it all up. He's trying to do the same thing that was done in Russia when the ussr collapsed.
A great opportunity for China to get into open source
They open sourced deepseek and the US government banned it 😭😭 even universities are barred from using it
Funny reading westoid commenters here bashing China for being "authoritarian" when it literally open sourced a groundbreaking innovation a month ago. Washingtobot crackers
Why does that exclude the Chinese government from being authoritarian?
China is authoritarian just like every other state in the world. Except that it's also a whole-process people's democracy unlike the W🤮st
just like every other state in the world
Really? Let's talk about Tiananmen Square. Or how about Uyghurs. Let's use a picture of Winnie the Pooh. Is it really "just like" every other state? I'd say it's a little bit above the average. People's democracy my ass. Just because trump turned USA authoritarian didn't make China less authoritarian.
Ok, let's talk. Trump never really changed anything about "authoritarianism". Every single state is by nature authoritarian. Where in the West do you see a democracy? Almost all media in the US is controlled by 6 corporations. What kind of democratic process can there be if the only candidates that get mainstream attention are Trump and controlled opposition (Kamala)?
Again, here's some Chad Lenin:
It is sheer mockery of the working and exploited people to speak of pure democracy, of democracy in general, of equality, freedom and universal rights when the workers and all working people are ill-fed, ill-clad, ruined and worn out, not only as a result of capitalist wage slavery, but as a consequence of four years of predatory war, while the capitalists and profiteers remain in possession of the "property" usurped by them and the "ready-made" apparatus of state power. This is tantamount to trampling on the basic truths of Marxism which has taught the workers: you must take advantage of bourgeois democracy which, compared with feudalism, represents a great historical advance, but not for one minute must you forget the bourgeois character of this "democracy", it's historical conditional and limited character. Never share the "superstitious belief" in the "state" and never forget that the state even in the most democratic republic, and not only in a monarchy, is simply a machine for the suppression of one class by another.
Let’s talk about Tiananmen Square.
Or how about Uyghurs.
Let’s use a picture of Winnie the Pooh.
Not censored. You can buy Pooh-branded toys, watch Pooh Disney films, and ride Pooh-branded amusement park rides. Nobody has a problem with this adorable meme.
People’s democracy my ass.
If you want to talk about a fake democracy, look no further than the US. Previously:
The US government was never not captured by the bourgeoisie, because the US was born of a bourgeois revolution[1]. The wealthy, white, male, land-owning, largely slave-owning Founding Fathers constructed a bourgeois state with “checks and balances” against the “tyranny of the majority”. It was never meant to represent the majority—the working class—and it never has, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (at least those not disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote. BBC: [Princeton & Northwestern] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy
@davel notably, we are not in China. Are you also going to claim that DeepSeek isn't censored?
If you don't see any protests in a democracy, it's not because everybody is happy.
Are you also going to claim that DeepSeek isn’t censored?
You can download DeepSeek and run it yourself to get uncensored answers.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are not truth machines. They are garbage in, garbage out. The input to English-language models are largely English-language texts from Five Eyes countries, with all the disinformation and bias that that entails. So the DeepSeek company is in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. They can either refuse to answer certain questions, in which case Western media will accuse them of censorship; or they can answer them, in which case (a) their model will perpetuate Cold War I & Cold War II falsehoods and (b) Western media will parade those false answers around in a victory lap. They chose the former for the cloud version of their app, and the latter for the local version.
If you don’t see any protests in a democracy, it’s not because everybody is happy.
Now you’re just vagueposting 🙄 Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds:
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
@davel You are confidently incorrect on both counts, but that's to be expected. Stay classy.
Because only one type of government can be bad at a time don't you know. Only Imperialist western powers or Imperialist eastern powers never both.
Still, all you got is whataboutism.
We have hundreds of Marxist works. Let me quote some Lenin:
The “free people’s state” was a programme demand and a catchword current among the German Social-Democrats in the seventies. This catchword is devoid of all political content except that it describes the concept of democracy in a pompous philistine fashion. Insofar as it hinted in a legally permissible manner at a democratic republic, Engels was prepared to “justify” its use “for a time” from an agitational point of view. But it was an opportunist catchword, for it amounted to nothing more than prettifying bourgeois democracy, and was also a failure to understand the socialist criticism of the state in general. We are in favor of a democratic republic as the best form of state for the proletariat under capitalism. But we have no right to forget that wage slavery is the lot of the people even in the most democratic bourgeois republic. Furthermore, every state is a “special force” for the suppression of the oppressed class. Consequently, every state is not “free” and not a “people’s state". Marx and Engels explained this repeatedly to their party comrades in the seventies.
How much does Pooh pay you to write that stuff?
Millions of xibucks
The Scheidemanns and Kautsky's speak about "pure democracy" and "democracy" in general for the purpose of deceiving the people and concealing from them the bourgeois character of present-day democracy. Let the bourgeoisie continue to keep the entire apparatus of state power in their hands, let a handful of exploiters continue to use the former, bourgeois, state machine! Elections held in such circumstances are lauded by the bourgeoisie, for very good reasons, as being "free", "equal", "democratic" and "universal". These words are designed to conceal the truth, to conceal the fact that the means of production and political power remain in the hands of the exploiters, and that therefore real freedom and real equality for the exploited, that is, for the vast majority of the population, are out of the question. It is profitable and indispensable for the bourgeoisie to conceal from the people the bourgeois character of modern democracy, to picture it as democracy in general or "pure democracy", and the Scheidemanns and Kautskys, repeating this, in practice abandon the standpoint of the proletariat and side with the bourgeoisie.
Marx and Engels in their last joint preface to the Communist Manifesto (in 1872)[A] considered it necessary to specifically warn the workers that the proletariat cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made (that is, the bourgeois) state machine and wield it for their own purpose, but that they must smash it, break it up. The renegade Kautsky, who has written a special pamphlet entitled dictatorship of the proletariat, concealed from the workers this most important Marxist truth, utterly distorted Marxism, and, quite obviously, the praise which Scheidemann and Co. showered on the pamphlet was fully merited as praise by agents of the bourgeoisie for one switching to the side of the bourgeoisie.
It is sheer mockery of the working and exploited people to speak of pure democracy, of democracy in general, of equality, freedom and universal rights when the workers and all working people are ill-fed, ill-clad, ruined and worn out, not only as a result of capitalist wage slavery, but as a consequence of four years of predatory war, while the capitalists and profiteers remain in possession of the "property" usurped by them and the "ready-made" apparatus of state power. This is tantamount to trampling on the basic truths of Marxism which has taught the workers: you must take advantage of bourgeois democracy which, compared with feudalism, represents a great historical advance, but not for one minute must you forget the bourgeois character of this "democracy", it's historical conditional and limited character. Never share the "superstitious belief" in the "state" and never forget that the state even in the most democratic republic, and not only in a monarchy, is simply a machine for the suppression of one class by another.
The bourgeoisie are compelled to be hypocritical and to describe as "popular government", democracy in general, or pure democracy, the ( bourgeois ) democratic republic which is, in practice, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the dictatorship of the exploiters over the working people. The Scheidemanns and Kautskys, the Austerlitzes and Renners (and now, to our regret, with the help of Friedrich Adler) fall in line with this falsehood and hypocrisy. But Marxists, Communists, expose this hypocrisy, and tell the workers and the working people in general this frank and straightforward truth: the democratic republic, the Constituent Assembly, general elections, etc., are, in practice, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and for the emancipation of labor from the yoke of capital there is no other way but to replace this dictatorship with the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Or China! Open source is basically digital communism so maybe they'll step in and support it like they did with the World Health Organization
Yeah... Because China is big into encryption
They are in order to get away from American products
I thought the EU was reducing funding to FOSS projects and investing more into AI. I could've sworn I read that somewhere last year.
Edit: https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/17/foss_funding_vanishes_from_eus/
I think it was this event that I read.
ikr, i can't believe this administration did something backwards this time.
