It’ll be at the hands of whatever jurisdiction the forker is in. It’s not like you can escape governments.

No, I’m telling people not to suspect anything, because we don’t know anything.

This is all hypothetical

Yes, that is exactly my point: let’s not get all worked up about something where we have almost zero facts. Although:

open source is beholden to western laws and corporate practices

is definitely the case for the Linux Foundation: it’s beholden to US laws. And wake-up call or not, a foundation would always be incorporated somewhere, and beholden to the laws of that somewhere.

Oh geez, this the third reply by the same account… Again, I’m just saying that we don’t know whether the contributors were assumed guilty, or if they have actual ties to sanctioned companies.

I am literally saying the opposite: I am saying that it’s not clear that this applies to all Russians, or just ones that are sanctioned.

No, I’m saying that if the banned people are only banned because they’re associated with the Russian government (/employed by sanctioned companies), then I’m not going to get outraged over the kernel maintainers. I do not expect them to break the law just to die on this hill.

I would get it if he would have simply stated that the Linux Foundation needs to abide by the sanctions

I mean, that’s basically what he said:

If you haven’t heard of Russian sanctions yet, you should try to read the news some day.

Doesn’t sound like they banned Russians in general, just people employed by sanctioned companies.

Honestly I wish that was a principle that the internet embraced more. We’re so trigger-happy to be outraged.

I don’t see what this has to do with my comment. I see no indication that all Russians are blanket-banned.

…and we don’t know whether they’re the former or the latter, no? So maybe a little early to get outraged?

Imagine if all the hours spent shitposting on Lemmy was spent on a single distribution.

The ways people enjoy spending their time are not interchangeable. Or in other words: https://fosstodon.org/@bragefuglseth/113183569977642462

I mean, the extension system means we could easily fix it

If that’s the case, then why not do it? Apparently the people who actually worked on X11 had a different idea, and so they decide not to do it themselves - but the code is right there for those who do think that that’s a good approach.

Likewise, there are plenty of definitions of “better” that make Wayland a lot better. It’s just that it’s a lot of work to make something better, especially for some interpretations of “better”.

The authentic French translation of forking.

Doing the lord’s work, thank you.

Now there’s a meme I haven’t seen in a while.

Ah gotcha, thanks for bringing in the source - that does come down to the ISRG selling it. The thing I’d missed in your quote is that it’s referring to aggregate data. So yeah, how that meshes with what I’ve read is that the ISRG won’t be able to view user data, but indeed the ad performance data would be sold to advertisers.

for the third party services that do the aggregating, which will “sell” (literal quote) the aggregate data

You’re saying you’re literally quoting the ISRG as planning to sell the data? Because that goes directly against what I’ve read about this, which I believe says that they wouldn’t even be able to because they can’t see the data.

That only applies to personally-identifiable information.

Advertisers can already easily get this data without this setting, and any measures you take to block ads also by definition affect this setting.

Meanwhile, if this works and becomes widely available, regulators will be able to take measures against user surveillance without having to succumb to the ad industry’s argument that they won’t know whether their ads work.

And yes, this provides data to advertisers, but it’s data about their ads, not about users.