True but the content is still created by others. - that is why I find this anti FB is a little problematic because one has to realize that they are only a platform. That does not mean that I give FB a pass.
Their tendency to collect data and work sell it that is the most dangerous part for me which is why I do not use FB or post there.
But this hardly can have any influence or pose security issues for Blender.
-Really?
Thatās like saying e.g. āthe U.S. Air Force is only a platform, because the bombs, missiles etc. they droped on e.g. Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea etc. were produced by Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, et al.ā
greetings, Kologe
They offer powerful tools which can be used to cause damage.
You probably would not say the same if the tool in question were bombs. But the tools being digital does not change anything imo.
Selling dangerous stuff comes with responsibility.
Well, yes, the data collecting makes it possible to make the tools so dangerous in first place.
BTW are you sure you are not using FB? I mean they have other services such as WhatsApp as well.
Of course not. I donāt think they can or even want to damage Blender. I just think its an ethical problem to take money from them.
Is there someone whom you find so bad that you would not want money from them at all? Or would you accept money from absolutely everybody if they had no influence on Blender at all.
hmmmm, by this logic, no one should ever deal with a country that, say, was the only one to drop an A-bomb on civiliansā¦ Because that would be an implicit approval, no?
I have FB installed and an account so my wife can claim me being her husband and that is the end of it. I donāt use whatsapp.
The recent few years show clearly also that such outlets need to step up responsibilities too.
But the legal problem then is how.
I think we can all agree on that a lot of false claims are being made on such platforms from covid-19 to election related misinformation.
That is where I personally feel FB makes it itself also easy by claiming that they are only a platform and not the authors.
This idea of free speech also needs to have rules and limits. Why do we otherwise have rules in our life? And people need to understand that this is not an intrusion of freedom but simply a needed mechanism to bring order to the public space.
In the end companies like FB or Twitter only profited from the outrage.
Again main reason why I dont use them.
Life is an act of striking balances - you have to accept some issues as simply being there otherwise you would go insane.
My point is when FB is seen as evil then we have to extend that logic and thinking to everything also including consumerism and that would force then our purchase habit which nobody is willing todo.
Again I am not making a case for FB at all and I agree with the issues with it fully.
People just need to stop cherry picking issues and getting outraged when ignoring other issues.
you forgot to add to still tell today it was to end the war and even keep up this myth while ignoring the whole political and industrial reality behind incl the military stating it wont be needed. face palm ā¦
Yeah or in reverse all Germans are evil because we had the Nazis.
FB can also have very positive aspects. Connecting people, enabling them to communicate and so forth. Thats truly an achievement and service too
Yes really FB is not like those radicals at Fox or other crazy shows who on purpose mislead people, tell lies, and sow outrage directly.
FB does not hire people to create content - people use FB as a platform to share their content.
But that should not absolve FB from being aware of the problem it poses.
Look for example at the misinformation about covid-19. Now a family member send me a secret video soon to be taken down where a doctor warns that Bill gates and co are working with vaccine companies to get implants into use so a big AI can later control us.
We are in the mist of a pandemic and instead of having a serious conversation about safety of super fast developed drugs people drift into those crazy topics.
Yeah so what should FB do? Ban it - then they are accused of censorship. Let it play then they are accused of siding with crazy.
Again not defending them but people have to be a little realistic and honest here too about this whole mess.
Even Twitters attempt to flag posts as problematic is considered evil by some.
And if you see FB as a platform honestly the people responsible for how it is being used are the content creators. They are the one that create this type of stuff for their own benefit. FB just is a side participant.
What I am saying is that with all due criticism towards FB it is a little easy to put all the blame onto FB only and ignore everybody else.
I agree that the legal problem with FB is difficult but Blender accepting money from FB is not a legal matter.
Yes, you should absolutely extend that logic. It is often not feasible but often it is. When possible (such as in this case) you should do it.
Yeah hence why while knowing FB bad parts it also has good parts and all FB does is donate some money for Blender devs.
So, is there anybody bad enough you would not want money from or would you take money from absolutely everybody?
Oh oh, I know
Iād want them to be dealt with according to the law (but that is the tricky part). And then take their money anyway and use it for the good cause.
Which law?
The bad parts of Facebook are pretty severe in my opinion. Social media can reinforce the divide of people. The more a social media company optimized for revenue, the more extreme issues such as filter bubbles become. From my perspective, when Facebook has a choice of trying to improve the social issues their platform is producing vs optimizing for money, they pick the money. They only seem to change when the external pressure through laws or from their advertisers is enormous. Thatās pretty bad in my opinion. They have a lot of power and are heavily ignoring their social responsibilities.
In my opinion the business ethics of Facebook is not appropriate, especially not for a company with so much power. Now, as any other company, they are also doing some good things, of course. But I am primarily judging a company on their behaviour regarding their core business.
Now that is the question. What makes someone a criminal? They were accused and proven to be guilty by some law, rightā¦? Criminals, terroristā¦ you canāt call people that unless they deserve these titles in the eyes of the law.
Or there could be no law yet (or anymore) for something that is done, but itās considered immoral in our times. In that case you first have to direct attention to the problem, invent a new law and then enforce it.
And if itās just a problem of questionable ethicsā¦ there really not many regulation mechanisms for that in a free world, is there? Weād have to start using censorship, social manipulation, approved ideologyā¦ all that wonderful stuff that is so often associated with the Ultimate Evil.
For now unless there are real, written rules to be broken, you canāt just punish people for being ābadā.
ā¦Besides, how bad ones are supposed to ever step on the path of redemption if the good guys are such stuck-upā¦ saints =)
That is why I think that coupling legal issues with ehical issues is not useful. Just because something is legal does not mean you should do it.
In my jurisdiction Iām allowed to feed my 1 year old toddler beer as long as it is not in public. However, that doesnāt mean I should do it.
True, that doesnāt mean you should. But how would you tell if itās right or wrong now?
Moral compass? These things tend to spin like crazy and everyone has a unique model.
I think what Ton should do in regards to this discussion is a challenge to the community.
That is, the community starts searching for people who are willing to donate and/or upgrade their donation. For every 10,000 dollars the community adds to its share, a corporation is told to get lost.
If Ton promised that Facebook would be the first company to be kicked out of the fund, would the community be able to do it?
No, no, My outrage should not have any negative impact on me, why, how very dare you? 
It wouldnāt occur to me to do so. The business models of other social-media corporations such as Twitter are just as bad.
But anyway, I remember Tonās keynote on BConf 2019, where he mentioned Anand Giridharadasās book āWinners Take Allā.
I read it and while I do very much agree with Giridharadas, I always wonder how Tonās approval (of Giridharadasā views) goes together with accepting sponsorship from e.g. FB or google.
I guess should I ever get a chance to meet Ton in person, Iāll ask him.
The querstion is where to draw the line. Should the BF take money from FB? What about Cambridge Analytica? Or if e.g. Big Tobacco wanted to sponsor Blender, would it be OK either? How about Big Pharma, maybe the infamous Purdue Pharma who flooded the streets in the U.S. with oxy, much like the CIA flooded them with crack in the 80ies.
greetings, Kologe
When it comes to topics like reinforcing the divide among people, there is usually no disagreement that this is not wanted. The same is true for hateful content, though you may argue where it starts. Both of those are clearly bad, but it is difficult to draw a line. For the first one, I am also not sure how a law for it could look like.