Here’s Matrix CEOs answer to this article: https://lobste.rs/c/jekh0n – according to him the article is absurd amounts of FUD
Here’s Matrix CEOs answer to this article: https://lobste.rs/c/jekh0n – according to him the article is absurd amounts of FUD
I did not know this. I’ve seen people recommend SimpleX on lemmy too, but probably they didn’t know.
Me neither, this is actually disgusting, immediately uninstalled, a founder that has these views most likely shouldn’t be trusted with your data, anyway.
This should be an awareness post on some tech communities
Thank you so, so, so, so much for saying this!
Is that it? We stop using better programs because we disagree with the creator’s views?
What a disgusting, childish world some of these people live in.
“I was going to buy that house, but the owner’s views made me reconsider. I decided to go with something worse.”
Yes, unfortunately that is the current reality. Note also the subtle hints this article points to: if you disagree with any of the tenents of our clique, you’re evil. In this case, Matrix uses capitalistic toolsets, which implies it is evil, and you should rather use an unfinished alternative because it’s made a by a trans person which is virtuous.
Although I don’t totally oppose judging people because of their views (shaming has been and can be a very useful for improving societies), I wonder if software written by such people should be. Seems to me that we don’t have the abundance of software yet that would allow doing that.
Especially I’m wary of judging people for being dumb in applications like Twitter that use dark patterns to entice them into being dumb. In some way it feels to me like punching down, like blaming the victim.
This attitude has worked so well for allowing the current crop of tech billionaires to grow and cement their influence over the entire world. If people would just stop using their platforms when they hear the CEO’s batshit views then they would be nobodies.
The SimpleX Chat is AGPL. If the founder is problematic, one can fork it and avoid reinventing what has already been made.
go on then
Views that seriously harm or endanger other people are dangerous.
If the founder would have opposing views in e.g. should we narrow down the car roads in cities and widen the pedestrian walks - ok. I think there’s a lot to this question, I think pedestrian walks should be wider, cars are dangerous, etc. But this is not as dangerous as:
“Do you deny scientific evidence that COVID is real and a real danger to a lot of humans”