Would you consider it a good deed if a rich person gave a homeless person 1 euro while not around other people, and then went around the city proclaiming they support homeless people and have been funding them? In my opinion thats not a good deed.
I don’t think that comparison is entirely fair, but I do think that homeless person having 1 euro is still better than that person not having 1 euro. Especially if instead of 1 euro, they actually gave the homeless donation equivalent of keeping a project like Immich viable.
I’d also keep in mind that there are other rich person not giving 1 euro to a homeless person, and so while I have my reservations about rich people in general, I wouldn’t necessarily single out the one that gave the euro.
My point was basically to try to make you look at it from a different perspective. Sure 1 euro is better than 0, but thats not the point I was trying to make.
That looks at it from the perspective of the person in need of that 1 euro, or however much money. Im asking you to look at it from the perspective of the one giving the money. Now ask yourself why they would give just 1, if they can give 5, or 10, or give 1 consistently every month, assuming theyre rich-rich compared to the homeless guy.
The reason seems to be that the person giving the money doesnt care about helping in any way, they just want to do the minimum so that they can claim they help abd support the homeless.
Context and intent matters when discussing things like this, I think. If the intent is self serving, we shouldnt be treating FUTO as a beacon of OSS support. What we should be doing is acknowledging that they did give a small one time donation to various projects, but also recognising that it was for self-serving reasons. I’m sure theres individuals who have given more than 1000 in single payments to these projects, or less but more consistently (monthly, every 6 months, every year, etc). What makes FUTO more of a supporter than those individuals?
Anyway, I hope I explained my thinking well enough :)
Edit: I gave you the upvote even though I dont entirely agree with the way you see this matter, simply because I saw you got downvoted probably by someone else who disagrees with your opinion. However, upvotes/downvotes should be used to rate quality of discussion, not agreement/disagreement with the content.
Haha, don’t worry, I get that perspective. I was actually trying to do the opposite - I feel like the perspective you outline is the default one people will usually take, so I wanted to change that :P I think this article does a good job of that too: just because they’re not perfect, doesn’t mean someone actively doing some good deserves negative attention, when we don’t give that same treatment to others who do less good.
That said, I’m not arguing that we should “be treating FUTO as a beacon of OSS support”. I do actually agree with all of this:
What we should be doing is acknowledging that they did give a small one time donation to various projects, but also recognising that it was for self-serving reasons. I’m sure theres individuals who have given more than 1000 in single payments to these projects, or less but more consistently (monthly, every 6 months, every year, etc). What makes FUTO more of a supporter than those individuals?
If it wasn’t for this article, I wouldn’t actually be talking about FUTO. (Except in the context of Immich, where they actually are the main reason the project’s doing well.) So I don’t feel like we need to start negatively discussing them just because they’re not perfect.
And don’t worry about the downvotes, I don’t actually care about them.
Would you consider it a good deed if a rich person gave a homeless person 1 euro while not around other people, and then went around the city proclaiming they support homeless people and have been funding them? In my opinion thats not a good deed.
I don’t think that comparison is entirely fair, but I do think that homeless person having 1 euro is still better than that person not having 1 euro. Especially if instead of 1 euro, they actually gave the homeless donation equivalent of keeping a project like Immich viable.
I’d also keep in mind that there are other rich person not giving 1 euro to a homeless person, and so while I have my reservations about rich people in general, I wouldn’t necessarily single out the one that gave the euro.
My point was basically to try to make you look at it from a different perspective. Sure 1 euro is better than 0, but thats not the point I was trying to make.
That looks at it from the perspective of the person in need of that 1 euro, or however much money. Im asking you to look at it from the perspective of the one giving the money. Now ask yourself why they would give just 1, if they can give 5, or 10, or give 1 consistently every month, assuming theyre rich-rich compared to the homeless guy.
The reason seems to be that the person giving the money doesnt care about helping in any way, they just want to do the minimum so that they can claim they help abd support the homeless.
Context and intent matters when discussing things like this, I think. If the intent is self serving, we shouldnt be treating FUTO as a beacon of OSS support. What we should be doing is acknowledging that they did give a small one time donation to various projects, but also recognising that it was for self-serving reasons. I’m sure theres individuals who have given more than 1000 in single payments to these projects, or less but more consistently (monthly, every 6 months, every year, etc). What makes FUTO more of a supporter than those individuals?
Anyway, I hope I explained my thinking well enough :)
Edit: I gave you the upvote even though I dont entirely agree with the way you see this matter, simply because I saw you got downvoted probably by someone else who disagrees with your opinion. However, upvotes/downvotes should be used to rate quality of discussion, not agreement/disagreement with the content.
Haha, don’t worry, I get that perspective. I was actually trying to do the opposite - I feel like the perspective you outline is the default one people will usually take, so I wanted to change that :P I think this article does a good job of that too: just because they’re not perfect, doesn’t mean someone actively doing some good deserves negative attention, when we don’t give that same treatment to others who do less good.
That said, I’m not arguing that we should “be treating FUTO as a beacon of OSS support”. I do actually agree with all of this:
If it wasn’t for this article, I wouldn’t actually be talking about FUTO. (Except in the context of Immich, where they actually are the main reason the project’s doing well.) So I don’t feel like we need to start negatively discussing them just because they’re not perfect.
And don’t worry about the downvotes, I don’t actually care about them.