685
US cuts funding to F-Droid, Tor Browser, Let's Encrypt and Tails Linux
(videos.abnormalbeings.space)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2025
685 points (99.3% liked)
Open Source
35762 readers
289 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Oh No ! Leopards Ate My Face.
Better off in the long run.
This is not an example of leopards eating someone's face. Unless those projects threw their support behind Trump's admin, and I have no reason to believe they did, this is simply falling victim to fascist idiots.
Valid point.
Uhh.. these projects are the backbone of the free and modern web. How is less funding a good thing?
Not the one you answered to, but I think I can understand the idea of US funding having been a toxic source of dependency, and it being better in the long run to get money elsewhere. That "elsewhere" is a good question, though.
Just me, personally, my dream would be an international fund, carried by the UN or maybe an independent NGO, that can get funding from both private and public funds, that prioritises free internet access the way the WHO prioritises health. But I think that's still far off.
No. UN and related independent NGOs have shown their cards. They cannot be trusted. ICANN is the quintessential example of an ossified vulturous bureaucracy laser focused on oligarchic control. And the ITU has designs to rewrite current Internet protocols to have a fee structure built in at the packet level to ensure no packed flow without someone paying money.
We cannot trust the systems we have now. We must focus on diversifying income sources for us to be safe
Isn't the OTF already an NGO that can receive funding from different sources?
Kind of, I wouldn't really call them an international organisation in the way I would be imagining, see how easy it was to cut their funding when national interests turned openly fascist. Their affiliation with the US government above more independent, international organisations meant, that they would support privacy and a free and open internet, as long as it helps dissidents in other, non-aligned countries, but quick to cut it, if it reaches their own doorsteps.
Yup, pretty much my intent, that and the insecurity it engenders, rather surprised by the reaction.
the reaction makes sense; these organizations are modeled after for-profit corporations since that's where most of its leaders come from and oriented towards simpler modes of funding like the american gov't; this is effectively a disaster for this sort of posture and it's hard from them to imagine any other form.
This is the crux of the problem when losing funding like this
Not sure if this is meant here, but shockingly many people believe that "funding" something equals to "controlling" it.
Pretty much the definition of soft power, which an awful lot of politicians believe in.
For a good reason
@thingsiplay It does, if it turns into dependence. Look at Mozilla.
Mozilla was not controlled by Google.
Not a good thing, just an inevitable one, as they conflict with the interests of the US (oligarchs and techbros).
@MalReynolds Are you saying F-Droid, TOR, Tails or Let's Encrypt supported Trump? I'd like to read more about that.
How could you read it that way ? I'm saying eventually they were going to conflict with the interests of the US (oligarchs and techbros) and lose funding. Shocker, it happened under cheeto.
@MalReynolds Leopards eating faces implies that they voted for the Leopards. But ok, issue clarified, all good.
Yeah, I have a broader view of the phrase, which includes complacency (not actively working at alternatives) as well as just voting, seems most agree with you.
Having a broader view of a phrase just means you didn't understand the phrase. It's okay to admit that.