No Billionares at FOSDEM
A call to bar billionaires—specifically Jack Dorsey—from keynoting the FOSDEM open‑source conference has triggered a broader debate over money, power and legitimacy in FOSS spaces. Commenters argue over whether extreme wealth is inherently corrupting or whether only specific harmful actions (like crypto promotion, labor practices or political influence) should be grounds for exclusion, and some challenge factual claims about Dorsey’s role in selling Twitter to Elon Musk. Others worry that organizing a sit‑in to block his talk crosses into censorship, suggesting instead that people simply boycott the keynote or use the platform to ask critical questions.
Scope of the Objection: Billionaires vs. Specific Behavior
- Some commenters fully support the “no billionaires at FOSDEM” stance and the proposed sit‑in.
- Others argue the issue should be behavior and topics (e.g., crypto, AI grifts, labor practices), not a wealth threshold.
- Critics see the slogan as envy‑driven or overbroad, asking whether all billionaires, including relatively low‑profile or philanthropic ones, should be excluded.
- Pro‑exclusion voices counter that extreme wealth itself is harmful (power imbalance, emissions, social distance), likening billionaires to “black holes.”
Jack Dorsey, Twitter Sale, and Factual Disputes
- Multiple comments note that Twitter was a public company; shareholders and the board approved the sale, and Dorsey was a small minority holder.
- It’s stated he rolled his shares into the private entity rather than taking cash, so he didn’t get the simple billion‑dollar payout described in the article.
- Some argue he likely couldn’t have stopped the sale even if he wanted to.
- This is used to claim parts of the article are misleading, weakening its case.
FOSDEM Sponsorship, Platforming, and Crypto
- Several are uneasy about a crypto‑/blockchain‑oriented company being given keynote stage time at a FOSS event.
- One organizer clarifies FOSDEM has never sold talk slots for money; sponsors don’t buy content.
- Some suggest: take sponsorship money but let the keynote play to an empty or near‑empty hall as a statement.
- Others argue the real structural problem is dependence on large sponsors, not guests’ net worth.
Protest vs. Free Expression
- A visible faction is opposed to physically blocking the keynote, comparing it to “book burning” and arguing people should choose simply not to attend.
- Ideas raised include silent or parallel protest, pointed Q&A, or formal protocols that allow protest without preventing the talk.
- Supporters of the sit‑in see “peacefully prevent the talk” as legitimate direct action; opponents see it as overreach.
FOSS Community Burden and Expectations
- Some agree that migration from Twitter to federated platforms put real strain on volunteer‑run infra.
- Others push back: if you offer a public FOSS service, increased use is not a moral debt owed by a corporation; operators can limit signups if it’s unsustainable.
Views on Tech Billionaires and Achievement
- Long subthreads debate whether certain tech billionaires’ achievements (reusable rockets, EVs, satellite networks) justify giving them platforms.
- One side emphasizes hostility to workers, political influence, and pervasive dishonesty; the other emphasizes unprecedented technical and organizational execution.
- There is recurring tension between crediting the “money guy” vs. the actual engineers and pre‑existing research.