Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.project > #13683 > unrolled thread

Debian sever ties with Google?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project

Contents

  Debian sever ties with Google? Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2025-01-31 04:10 +0100
    Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Andrew Pollock <apollock@debian.org> - 2025-01-31 06:30 +0100
      Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Tiago Bortoletto Vaz <tiago@debian.org> - 2025-01-31 15:20 +0100
      Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2025-01-31 21:30 +0100
        Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Iustin Pop <iustin@debian.org> - 2025-01-31 23:00 +0100
        Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> - 2025-01-31 23:00 +0100
        Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2025-01-31 23:00 +0100
          Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2025-02-01 20:30 +0100
            Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-02-01 23:00 +0100
        Re: Debian sever ties with Google? dovencio.doshorte@gmail.com - 2025-02-01 14:20 +0100
          Re: Debian sever ties with Google? "Jeffrey Anthony Serio" <hyperreal@moonshadow.dev> - 2025-02-01 17:50 +0100
        Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Emmanuel Arias <eamanu@debian.org> - 2025-02-01 23:00 +0100
    Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> - 2025-01-31 15:40 +0100
    Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2025-02-01 20:30 +0100
    Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2025-02-01 20:30 +0100
    Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2025-02-02 14:10 +0100
    Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2025-02-06 12:50 +0100
      Re: Debian sever ties with Google? thomas@goirand.fr - 2025-02-06 16:40 +0100
        Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Satvik Sinha <sinhasatvik214@gmail.com> - 2025-02-06 18:10 +0100
          Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2025-02-06 18:50 +0100
            Re: Debian sever ties with Google? "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2025-02-07 02:00 +0100
              Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-02-07 03:00 +0100
                Re: Debian sever ties with Google? "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2025-02-07 03:30 +0100
                  Re: Debian sever ties with Google? dovencio.doshorte@gmail.com - 2025-02-07 08:50 +0100
                    Re: Debian sever ties with Google? "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2025-02-07 12:00 +0100
                      Re: Debian sever ties with Google? dovencio.doshorte@gmail.com - 2025-02-08 08:20 +0100
                  Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-02-07 08:50 +0100
      Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2025-02-07 03:00 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#13683 — Debian sever ties with Google?

Since we as a project have left Twitter/X (as recently announced by our
Publicity Team) on the basis of "We do not want to be present in a place
where we cannot ensure that users will be respected and where abuse
happens without consequences" [0] [1], I would like start a discussion
about how we as a project can promptly sever ties with Google.

Currently, the Debian project has a much closer relationship with Google
than we have ever had with Twitter/X. Google is listed on the Debian
Partners Program page [2], which states:

"Google sponsors parts of Salsa's continuous integration infrastructure
within Google Cloud Platform."

"Google is one of the largest technology companies in the world,
providing a wide range of Internet-related services and products as
online advertising technologies, search, cloud computing, software, and
hardware."

Additionally, Google is a DebConf25 sponsor [3].

Yet, Google has for a long time closely collaborated with the United
States Government, specifically with the Defense and Intellence arms.
This collaboration is no longer something that our project can continue
to turn a blind toward. Just within the last year Google has increased
this collaboration to the point of becoming a full-fledged and
enthusiastic participant in the US defense industrial complex.

2024-04-09: "Google is now authorized to host classified data in the
cloud" [4]

"We're thrilled to announce another significant milestone for Google
Public Sector: the authorization of Google Distributed Cloud Hosted to
host Top Secret and Secret missions for the U.S. Intelligence Community,
and Top Secret missions for the Department of Defense," Leigh Palmer,
the company’s vice president of delivery and operations said at Google
Cloud Next conference in Las Vegas. "This authorization underscores
Google Public Sector's commitment to empowering government agencies with
secure, cutting-edge technology."

2024-04-17: "Google Public Sector ‘hitting our stride’ in government
market, CEO says" [5]

"Being authorized on secret and top secret for the most stringent
government requirements more than anything demonstrates Google's
commitment to this market. I’m so proud of that. You know, I'm a mission
junkie, former Navy officer, this is what I came to Google for: to be
able to deliver on the promise of Google technology and those missions."

This goes far beyond the US Defense and Intellence agencies purchasing
the same mass market products which are available to everyone, far
beyond benign public sector services for education and healthcare.
Google is specifically tailoring products and services, in close
collaboration with the US Defense and Intellence agencies, to
specifically increase the capabilities of those agencies.

Since there are people within the project who will not even travel to
the US because of problematic policies and overreach by the government,
especially by intelligence agencies, it seems highly problematic for us
to continue accepting Google as a sponsor. Especially given the fact
that Google has become a de facto part of the US government, and
especially of its intellegence arm. I feel far more threatened by a
continuing relationship between Debian and Google--knowing that Debian
shares a computing platform and resources with the monsters responsible
for thousands of drone strikes across the world, being responsible for
countless civilian deaths, as well as who knows what other atrocities
both inside the US and across the world--than by our former use of
Twitter/X as a platform for publishing bits of news about the project.
And a continuing relationship between Debian and Google objectively
poses a far greater threat of far greater harm to far more people than
did our former use of Twitter/X.

I am calling for those responsible for the Debian Partners Program to
immediately discontinue the partner relationship with Google and then
for those responsible for managing the various Google-integrated and
Google-hosted Debian services to being the process of divestiture.

Regards,

-Roberto

[0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-publicity/2025/01/msg00067.html
[1] https://x.com/debian/status/1884897431894323375
[2] https://www.debian.org/partners/
[3] https://debconf25.debconf.org/
[4] https://www.nextgov.com/acquisition/2024/04/google-now-authorized-host-classified-data-cloud/395557/
[5] https://www.nextgov.com/acquisition/2024/04/google-public-sector-hitting-our-stride-government-market-ceo-says/395819/


-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#13684

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 at 13:08, Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> wrote:

> Since we as a project have left Twitter/X (as recently announced by our
> Publicity Team) on the basis of "We do not want to be present in a place
> where we cannot ensure that users will be respected and where abuse
> happens without consequences" [0] [1], I would like start a discussion
> about how we as a project can promptly sever ties with Google.
>
>
Full disclosure: I am currently employed by Google, and do not speak for
the company.

DFSG #6 discusses not discriminating against fields of endeavour.

I can see the project wishing to cut ties with a social media platform that
is unable to ensure a minimum level of civil discourse. I'm not seeing how
this is even remotely equivalent to disengaging from a corporate sponsor
because of their commercial practices?

regards

Andrew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13685

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 02:25:19PM GMT, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 at 13:08, Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> wrote:
> 
> > Since we as a project have left Twitter/X (as recently announced by our
> > Publicity Team) on the basis of "We do not want to be present in a place
> > where we cannot ensure that users will be respected and where abuse
> > happens without consequences" [0] [1], I would like start a discussion
> > about how we as a project can promptly sever ties with Google.
> >
> >
> Full disclosure: I am currently employed by Google, and do not speak for
> the company.
> 
> DFSG #6 discusses not discriminating against fields of endeavour.
> 
> I can see the project wishing to cut ties with a social media platform that
> is unable to ensure a minimum level of civil discourse. I'm not seeing how
> this is even remotely equivalent to disengaging from a corporate sponsor
> because of their commercial practices?

I'm still digesting Roberto's email and don't have a strong opinion
about the whole thing, but if I'd to argue for or against his request,
I guess the DFSG wouldn't be the place to look at. DSFG #6 is clearly
about licensing, while the concerns pointed in his email appear to be
far broader.

Bests,

--
Tiago Vaz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13687

On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 02:25:19PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
>    On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 at 13:08, Roberto C. Sánchez <[1]roberto@debian.org>
>    wrote:
> 
>      Since we as a project have left Twitter/X (as recently announced by our
>      Publicity Team) on the basis of "We do not want to be present in a place
>      where we cannot ensure that users will be respected and where abuse
>      happens without consequences" [0] [1], I would like start a discussion
>      about how we as a project can promptly sever ties with Google.
> 
>    Full disclosure: I am currently employed by Google, and do not speak for
>    the company.
>    DFSG #6 discusses not discriminating against fields of endeavour.
>    I can see the project wishing to cut ties with a social media platform
>    that is unable to ensure a minimum level of civil discourse. I'm not
>    seeing how this is even remotely equivalent to disengaging from a
>    corporate sponsor because of their commercial practices?
>    regards
>    Andrew
> 
The formula I am applying here is directly:

"We do not want to be present in a place where we cannot ensure that
users will be respected and where abuse happens without consequences."

"We [Debian] do not want to be present in a place [on Twitter/X] where
we cannot ensure that users will be respected and where abuse happens
[causing certain people to feel unsafe] without consequences
[moderation/banning]."

It seems quite natural, then, that this follows:

"We [Debian] do not want to be present in a place [Google Cloud Platform
and other Google services] where we cannot ensure that users will be
respected and where abuse happens [directly assisting the US government
to prepare and execute missions that result in unconscionable civilian
casualties] without consequences [legal reprecussions]."

If the former results in leaving a social media platform, then the
latter should result in at least the same (leaving the platform and
services) and, I would argue, also calls for terminating the sponsor
relationship. To do otherwise would be to tacitly endorse things that
are objectively far worse than things we have *already* publicly stated
as a project we find reprehensible.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13688

Hi all,

I'm employed by Google, but I don't speak on Google's behalf, but:

On 2025-01-31 14:33:39, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 02:25:19PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> >    On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 at 13:08, Roberto C. Sánchez <[1]roberto@debian.org>
> >    wrote:
> > 
> >      Since we as a project have left Twitter/X (as recently announced by our
> >      Publicity Team) on the basis of "We do not want to be present in a place
> >      where we cannot ensure that users will be respected and where abuse
> >      happens without consequences" [0] [1], I would like start a discussion
> >      about how we as a project can promptly sever ties with Google.
> > 
> >    Full disclosure: I am currently employed by Google, and do not speak for
> >    the company.
> >    DFSG #6 discusses not discriminating against fields of endeavour.
> >    I can see the project wishing to cut ties with a social media platform
> >    that is unable to ensure a minimum level of civil discourse. I'm not
> >    seeing how this is even remotely equivalent to disengaging from a
> >    corporate sponsor because of their commercial practices?
> >    regards
> >    Andrew
> > 
> The formula I am applying here is directly:
> 
> "We do not want to be present in a place where we cannot ensure that
> users will be respected and where abuse happens without consequences."
> 
> "We [Debian] do not want to be present in a place [on Twitter/X] where
> we cannot ensure that users will be respected and where abuse happens
> [causing certain people to feel unsafe] without consequences
> [moderation/banning]."
> 
> It seems quite natural, then, that this follows:
> 
> "We [Debian] do not want to be present in a place [Google Cloud Platform
> and other Google services] where we cannot ensure that users will be
> respected and where abuse happens [directly assisting the US government
> to prepare and execute missions that result in unconscionable civilian
> casualties] without consequences [legal reprecussions]."

This makes no sense to me.

What relation is there between Debian using Google's services/money, and
the US government? How would Debian using $1 of Google money would be
related to anything that "a user" would do, or that the US government
would do? If Debian uses for example CI services hosted on GCP, how is
"a user" be affected by whatever the US government does?

There are countries in this world that do not respect human rights.
Should we, then, restrict our social contract to prevent Debian's use in
those countries, because "users" could be harmed by those governments?

To me this all smells of communism and cancellation. Either as malicous
intent, or as very naive intent, as if in this world there are "good"
and "bad" people/organisations, and there's a clear line between them,
and the desire to be ideologically pure.

Debian as a whole will do whatever Debian decides, but man, this sounds
off to me. Maybe because I've lived under communism, so I'm more
sensitive to that evil than to whatever-you-think-the-US-government-is.

regards,
iustin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13689

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Quoting Roberto C. Sánchez (2025-01-31 20:33:39)
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 02:25:19PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> >    On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 at 13:08, Roberto C. Sánchez <[1]roberto@debian.org>
> >    wrote:
> > 
> >      Since we as a project have left Twitter/X (as recently announced by our
> >      Publicity Team) on the basis of "We do not want to be present in a place
> >      where we cannot ensure that users will be respected and where abuse
> >      happens without consequences" [0] [1], I would like start a discussion
> >      about how we as a project can promptly sever ties with Google.
> > 
> >    Full disclosure: I am currently employed by Google, and do not speak for
> >    the company.
> >    DFSG #6 discusses not discriminating against fields of endeavour.
> >    I can see the project wishing to cut ties with a social media platform
> >    that is unable to ensure a minimum level of civil discourse. I'm not
> >    seeing how this is even remotely equivalent to disengaging from a
> >    corporate sponsor because of their commercial practices?
> >    regards
> >    Andrew
> > 
> The formula I am applying here is directly:
> 
> "We do not want to be present in a place where we cannot ensure that
> users will be respected and where abuse happens without consequences."
> 
> "We [Debian] do not want to be present in a place [on Twitter/X] where
> we cannot ensure that users will be respected and where abuse happens
> [causing certain people to feel unsafe] without consequences
> [moderation/banning]."
> 
> It seems quite natural, then, that this follows:
> 
> "We [Debian] do not want to be present in a place [Google Cloud Platform
> and other Google services] where we cannot ensure that users will be
> respected and where abuse happens [directly assisting the US government
> to prepare and execute missions that result in unconscionable civilian
> casualties] without consequences [legal reprecussions]."
> 
> If the former results in leaving a social media platform, then the
> latter should result in at least the same (leaving the platform and
> services) and, I would argue, also calls for terminating the sponsor
> relationship. To do otherwise would be to tacitly endorse things that
> are objectively far worse than things we have *already* publicly stated
> as a project we find reprehensible.

I think these are different things.

Debian participating as a community at certain communication platforms
is one thing.

Debian partnering with organisation for processing our data and code is
another thing.

Personally I would prefer if we would only partner with ecologically and
socially sustainable organisations, but I doubt that we could agree on
that, because that is most likely economically far more expensive than
how we currently choose to handle things.

I am happy that you raise this question, but I think your argumentation
is weak, because you try make it a community issue.

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
 * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13690

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

>>>>> "Roberto" == Roberto C Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> writes:

    Roberto> On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 02:25:19PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
    >> On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 at 13:08, Roberto C. Sánchez
    >> <[1]roberto@debian.org>
    >> wrote:
    >> 
    >> Since we as a project have left Twitter/X (as recently announced
    >> by our Publicity Team) on the basis of "We do not want to be
    >> present in a place where we cannot ensure that users will be
    >> respected and where abuse happens without consequences" [0] [1],
    >> I would like start a discussion about how we as a project can
    >> promptly sever ties with Google.
    >> 
    >> Full disclosure: I am currently employed by Google, and do not
    >> speak for the company.  DFSG #6 discusses not discriminating
    >> against fields of endeavour.  I can see the project wishing to
    >> cut ties with a social media platform that is unable to ensure a
    >> minimum level of civil discourse. I'm not seeing how this is even
    >> remotely equivalent to disengaging from a corporate sponsor
    >> because of their commercial practices?  regards Andrew
    >> 
    Roberto> The formula I am applying here is directly:

    Roberto> "We do not want to be present in a place where we cannot
    Roberto> ensure that users will be respected and where abuse happens
    Roberto> without consequences."

I'm not going to contribute to this discussion much, because I do not
have a lot of time.

I think the further away from free software something is, the higher the
bar we should apply for getting involved in the politics.

I think both in the X and Google cases, Debian should not get involved
in the politics.
I did not object to the X decision for a couple of reasons even though
it made me uncomfortable.

Mostly, I didn't have time and thought following the discussion closely
would lead to a lack of happiness on my part.

Secondly, I think we should allow people in Debian doing the work to
have significant flexibility in how (and whether) that work gets done.
If what the publicity team and those maintaining Debian's X presence
were saying was that *they* felt uncomfortable being in a place where
they were not respected, then I fully support them. Similarly, if they
were saying that they did not want to do work in a place where users
were not respected, then as the people previously doing that work, I
support them in withdrawing.

In my mind that's different than a political statement: that is Debian
supporting the safety and comfort of members of our community. I  think
that support should be encouraged by the project.

Distinguishing those cases (where we are supporting our people) from the
cases where we are making a broader political decision is hard, and
frankly I didn't have the energy, especially since I'm not involved in
the publicity team enough to be a decision maker, and I do not support
overriding the publicity team in this instance.

How do I feel about the statement we made?
honestly, I am not thrilled.
If it really was a political decision (our people felt comfortable in
the X environment, but wanted to make a statement by leaving), I really
wish we had done something different.
If it was a non-political decision (our people felt uncomfortable
continuing the work), and we made a political statement anyway … well,
there are many worse things in the world.

So how would I apply this reasoning to Google?
If the DebConf team is uncomfortable in their interactions with
google---say because they are not treated respectfully, I absolutely
support them in withdrawing from the relationship.  (I believe that to
be counter-factual; as far as I know Google has always treated us with
respect.)
If the Salsa team and CI team want to work on more free cloud options, I
absolutely support that, even if that involves spending some Debian
money.

If we developed a free option for our CI infrastructure and wanted to
make a press release about it, I'd feel a lot more comfortable if we
focused on free software issues than broader issues with Google's
decisions.

I think the interesting question comes up if say Debconf wanted to put
together a policy for what sort of sponsors were acceptable.
Non-profits sometimes have to do that. My university, MIT, was in the
news for some of their infamous donors in ways they really did not
enjoy, and as a result, they have chosen to be much more clear about who
they take money from.
In my mind I'd rather the Debconf group put that together rather than
the project as a whole.
If they wanted to start including issues like environmental impact and
issues like you bring up, I guess I would hold my nose and support the
people doing the work making the decisions.
I wouldn't have a lot of sympathy if there were a budget shortfall if
the policy was too strict.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13695

Am Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 02:15:02PM -0700 schrieb Sam Hartman:
> 
> I think the further away from free software something is, the higher the
> bar we should apply for getting involved in the politics.
> 
> I think both in the X and Google cases, Debian should not get involved
> in the politics.

Right.  And I consider it a difference between where we post news about
the project and who is using our operating system.  Per DFSG it is OK
if X would use Debian - finally its free for everybody.

> Secondly, I think we should allow people in Debian doing the work to
> have significant flexibility in how (and whether) that work gets done.
> If what the publicity team and those maintaining Debian's X presence
> were saying was that *they* felt uncomfortable being in a place where
> they were not respected, then I fully support them. Similarly, if they
> were saying that they did not want to do work in a place where users
> were not respected, then as the people previously doing that work, I
> support them in withdrawing.

ACK
 
> How do I feel about the statement we made?
> honestly, I am not thrilled.
> If it really was a political decision (our people felt comfortable in
> the X environment, but wanted to make a statement by leaving), I really
> wish we had done something different.
> If it was a non-political decision (our people felt uncomfortable
> continuing the work), and we made a political statement anyway … well,
> there are many worse things in the world.

I understand that the latter is the case. There are valid non-political
reasons, but there is certainly plenty of room for interpreting the
decision in a political way.
 
> So how would I apply this reasoning to Google?
> If the DebConf team is uncomfortable in their interactions with
> google---say because they are not treated respectfully, I absolutely
> support them in withdrawing from the relationship.  (I believe that to
> be counter-factual; as far as I know Google has always treated us with
> respect.)
> If the Salsa team and CI team want to work on more free cloud options, I
> absolutely support that, even if that involves spending some Debian
> money.
> 
> If we developed a free option for our CI infrastructure and wanted to
> make a press release about it, I'd feel a lot more comfortable if we
> focused on free software issues than broader issues with Google's
> decisions.
> 
> I think the interesting question comes up if say Debconf wanted to put
> together a policy for what sort of sponsors were acceptable.
> Non-profits sometimes have to do that. My university, MIT, was in the
> news for some of their infamous donors in ways they really did not
> enjoy, and as a result, they have chosen to be much more clear about who
> they take money from.
> In my mind I'd rather the Debconf group put that together rather than
> the project as a whole.
> If they wanted to start including issues like environmental impact and
> issues like you bring up, I guess I would hold my nose and support the
> people doing the work making the decisions.
> I wouldn't have a lot of sympathy if there were a budget shortfall if
> the policy was too strict.

I agree with what you said above. IMHO, one aspect is missing here. As
mentioned earlier, the DFSG does not allow us to prevent anyone from
using Debian. If we were to reject sponsorship from our users, I fail to
see how this would have any impact on making the world a better place.
It’s not as if any of our users are paying us with the intent to, say,
increase environmental impact or anything similar. As far as I
understand, there are no restrictions on the donations we receive.

The decision about how we inform our users about our work is
fundamentally different from the decision about who we accept donations
from to support that work—as long as the donations do not influence our
free work.

Kind regards
   Andreas.

-- 
https://fam-tille.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13696

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Saturday, February 1, 2025 11:28:11 AM MST Andreas Tille wrote:
> The decision about how we inform our users about our work is
> fundamentally different from the decision about who we accept 
donations
> from to support that work—as long as the donations do not influence 
our
> free work.

I second this.

-- 
Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13691

On Friday, January 31, 2025 12:33:39 PM MST Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 02:25:19PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> >    On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 at 13:08, Roberto C. Sánchez
> >    <[1]roberto@debian.org>
> >    
> >    wrote:
> >      Since we as a project have left Twitter/X (as recently announced by
> >      our
> >      Publicity Team) on the basis of "We do not want to be present in a
> >      place
> >      where we cannot ensure that users will be respected and where abuse
> >      happens without consequences" [0] [1], I would like start a
> >      discussion
> >      about how we as a project can promptly sever ties with Google.
> >    
> >    Full disclosure: I am currently employed by Google, and do not speak
> >    for
> >    the company.
> >    DFSG #6 discusses not discriminating against fields of endeavour.
> >    I can see the project wishing to cut ties with a social media platform
> >    that is unable to ensure a minimum level of civil discourse. I'm not
> >    seeing how this is even remotely equivalent to disengaging from a
> >    corporate sponsor because of their commercial practices?
> >    regards
> >    Andrew
> 
> The formula I am applying here is directly:
> 
> "We do not want to be present in a place where we cannot ensure that
> users will be respected and where abuse happens without consequences."
> 
> "We [Debian] do not want to be present in a place [on Twitter/X] where
> we cannot ensure that users will be respected and where abuse happens
> [causing certain people to feel unsafe] without consequences
> [moderation/banning]."
> 
> It seems quite natural, then, that this follows:
> 
> "We [Debian] do not want to be present in a place [Google Cloud Platform
> and other Google services] where we cannot ensure that users will be
> respected and where abuse happens [directly assisting the US government
> to prepare and execute missions that result in unconscionable civilian
> casualties] without consequences [legal reprecussions]."
> 
> If the former results in leaving a social media platform, then the
> latter should result in at least the same (leaving the platform and
> services) and, I would argue, also calls for terminating the sponsor
> relationship. To do otherwise would be to tacitly endorse things that
> are objectively far worse than things we have *already* publicly stated
> as a project we find reprehensible.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Roberto

This is a good example of a slippery slope logical fallacy. 

A -> B =/= A -> B -> C

Twitter's poor moderation -> Debian stops accepting support =/= Google 
provides service to US military -> US military does ... -> Debian stops 
accepting support from Google

To break out of a slippery slope, remove the extraneous variables:

B -> C

US military does ... -> Debian stops accepting support from the military

Google's job is to provide a service to anyone who has the money to give. If 
Google denies service to the US military, the US military would just move onto 
another of many cloud platforms and nothing will change. Sure someone 
somewhere in the US military might think is it really worth it but before that 
happens Google must ask themselves is it really worth it. 

On the other hand if Google comes out and openly supports the actions and 
ethos of the US military, then that would be a different story. 


--
Dovenchiko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13692

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

I think the broader issue that Roberto is referring to is that Google is an unethical company for the reasons Roberto mentions, and for all the reasons that are agreed upon by privacy advocates today. I personally believe these are legitimate reasons to sever ties with Google. The pertinent question, from this perspective, is rather whether it is practical/feasible for Debian to find an alternative to the services Google provides, and whether Debian can survive without Google sponsorship.

I also don't think severing ties with Google the company has any bearing on whether individual contributors to Debian who are employed by Google and contributing to Debian under Google's capacity should be banned/shunned/whatever. I think Google employees should be allowed to make contributions to improve Debian. I think this in itself is categorically different from large-scale big corporate sponsorship (e.g., DebConf) or large-scale infrastructure dependency on unethical Big Tech companies (e.g., GCP).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13697

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 02:33:39PM -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 02:25:19PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> >    On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 at 13:08, Roberto C. Sánchez <[1]roberto@debian.org>
> >    wrote:
> > 
> >      Since we as a project have left Twitter/X (as recently announced by our
> >      Publicity Team) on the basis of "We do not want to be present in a place
> >      where we cannot ensure that users will be respected and where abuse
> >      happens without consequences" [0] [1], I would like start a discussion
> >      about how we as a project can promptly sever ties with Google.
> > 
> >    Full disclosure: I am currently employed by Google, and do not speak for
> >    the company.
> >    DFSG #6 discusses not discriminating against fields of endeavour.
> >    I can see the project wishing to cut ties with a social media platform
> >    that is unable to ensure a minimum level of civil discourse. I'm not
> >    seeing how this is even remotely equivalent to disengaging from a
> >    corporate sponsor because of their commercial practices?
> >    regards
> >    Andrew
> > 
> The formula I am applying here is directly:
> 
> "We do not want to be present in a place where we cannot ensure that
> users will be respected and where abuse happens without consequences."
> 
> "We [Debian] do not want to be present in a place [on Twitter/X] where
> we cannot ensure that users will be respected and where abuse happens
> [causing certain people to feel unsafe] without consequences
> [moderation/banning]."
> 
> It seems quite natural, then, that this follows:
> 
> "We [Debian] do not want to be present in a place [Google Cloud Platform
> and other Google services] where we cannot ensure that users will be
> respected and where abuse happens [directly assisting the US government
> to prepare and execute missions that result in unconscionable civilian
> casualties] without consequences [legal reprecussions]."
> 
> If the former results in leaving a social media platform, then the
> latter should result in at least the same (leaving the platform and
> services) and, I would argue, also calls for terminating the sponsor
> relationship. To do otherwise would be to tacitly endorse things that
> are objectively far worse than things we have *already* publicly stated
> as a project we find reprehensible.
>
I'm just thinking what will be the next topic? "We should leave Internet
because happens terrible things there"(?). The last post in Debian's X
account says: "The Debian Publicity Team will no longer post on X/Twitter",
and the Debian account still is there. Anyway, if you personally want to
stay in X/Twitter and post, just do it :-).

> Regards,
> 
> -Roberto
> 
> -- 
> Roberto C. Sánchez

-- 
cheers,
        Emmanuel Arias

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  eamanu@debian.org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  OpenPGP: 13796755BBC72BB8ABE2AEB5 FA9DEC5DE11C63F1                     
 ⠈⠳⣄

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13686

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2025-01-31 13:46:57 +0100 (+0100), Thomas Goirand wrote:
[...]
> To do this, Debian would need to run its own cloud platform as a
> replacement. I've been advocating for it, and volunteered to
> maintain an OpenStack cloud deployment for Debian own use.
> 
> If you wish that Debian gets out of using Google, engage in this
> effort, and find somewhere we can host such a deployment (then
> Debian can spend the money for buying the hardware). At this time,
> I have no clue where we should go, and I have no time to research
> it, plus I do not wish to get my employer involved to avoid any
> type of conflict of interest.

I'd be happy to get my employer involved though if it will help
(i.e. the OpenInfra Foundation that represents the upstream
OpenStack community).
-- 
Jeremy Stanley

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13693

Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote on 31/01/2025 at 13:46:57+0100:

> On 1/31/25 03:59, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>> Since we as a project have left Twitter/X (as recently announced by our
>> Publicity Team) on the basis of "We do not want to be present in a place
>> where we cannot ensure that users will be respected and where abuse
>> happens without consequences" [0] [1], I would like start a discussion
>> about how we as a project can promptly sever ties with Google.
>> Currently, the Debian project has a much closer relationship with
>> Google
>> than we have ever had with Twitter/X. Google is listed on the Debian
>> Partners Program page [2], which states:
>> "Google sponsors parts of Salsa's continuous integration
>> infrastructure
>> within Google Cloud Platform."
>> "Google is one of the largest technology companies in the world,
>> providing a wide range of Internet-related services and products as
>> online advertising technologies, search, cloud computing, software, and
>> hardware."
>> Additionally, Google is a DebConf25 sponsor [3].
>> Yet, Google has for a long time closely collaborated with the United
>> States Government, specifically with the Defense and Intellence arms.
>> This collaboration is no longer something that our project can continue
>> to turn a blind toward. Just within the last year Google has increased
>> this collaboration to the point of becoming a full-fledged and
>> enthusiastic participant in the US defense industrial complex.
>> 2024-04-09: "Google is now authorized to host classified data in the
>> cloud" [4]
>> "We're thrilled to announce another significant milestone for Google
>> Public Sector: the authorization of Google Distributed Cloud Hosted to
>> host Top Secret and Secret missions for the U.S. Intelligence Community,
>> and Top Secret missions for the Department of Defense," Leigh Palmer,
>> the company’s vice president of delivery and operations said at Google
>> Cloud Next conference in Las Vegas. "This authorization underscores
>> Google Public Sector's commitment to empowering government agencies with
>> secure, cutting-edge technology."
>> 2024-04-17: "Google Public Sector ‘hitting our stride’ in government
>> market, CEO says" [5]
>> "Being authorized on secret and top secret for the most stringent
>> government requirements more than anything demonstrates Google's
>> commitment to this market. I’m so proud of that. You know, I'm a mission
>> junkie, former Navy officer, this is what I came to Google for: to be
>> able to deliver on the promise of Google technology and those missions."
>> This goes far beyond the US Defense and Intellence agencies
>> purchasing
>> the same mass market products which are available to everyone, far
>> beyond benign public sector services for education and healthcare.
>> Google is specifically tailoring products and services, in close
>> collaboration with the US Defense and Intellence agencies, to
>> specifically increase the capabilities of those agencies.
>> Since there are people within the project who will not even travel
>> to
>> the US because of problematic policies and overreach by the government,
>> especially by intelligence agencies, it seems highly problematic for us
>> to continue accepting Google as a sponsor. Especially given the fact
>> that Google has become a de facto part of the US government, and
>> especially of its intellegence arm. I feel far more threatened by a
>> continuing relationship between Debian and Google--knowing that Debian
>> shares a computing platform and resources with the monsters responsible
>> for thousands of drone strikes across the world, being responsible for
>> countless civilian deaths, as well as who knows what other atrocities
>> both inside the US and across the world--than by our former use of
>> Twitter/X as a platform for publishing bits of news about the project.
>> And a continuing relationship between Debian and Google objectively
>> poses a far greater threat of far greater harm to far more people than
>> did our former use of Twitter/X.
>> I am calling for those responsible for the Debian Partners Program
>> to
>> immediately discontinue the partner relationship with Google and then
>> for those responsible for managing the various Google-integrated and
>> Google-hosted Debian services to being the process of divestiture.
>> Regards,
>> -Roberto
>
> Hi Roberto,
>
> I largely agree that we should reduce our use of sponsored hosting
> space in general, and Google (non-free) cloud platform specifically.
>
> To do this, Debian would need to run its own cloud platform as a
> replacement. I've been advocating for it, and volunteered to maintain
> an OpenStack cloud deployment for Debian own use.
>
> If you wish that Debian gets out of using Google, engage in this
> effort, and find somewhere we can host such a deployment (then Debian
> can spend the money for buying the hardware). At this time, I have no
> clue where we should go, and I have no time to research it, plus I do
> not wish to get my employer involved to avoid any type of conflict of
> interest.

The thing is, having a cloud platform, hosting it and maintaining costs
plenty money that we don't really have.

-- 
PEB

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13694

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> wrote on 31/01/2025 at 03:59:10+0100:

> Since we as a project have left Twitter/X (as recently announced by our
> Publicity Team) on the basis of "We do not want to be present in a place
> where we cannot ensure that users will be respected and where abuse
> happens without consequences" [0] [1], I would like start a discussion
> about how we as a project can promptly sever ties with Google.
>
> Currently, the Debian project has a much closer relationship with Google
> than we have ever had with Twitter/X. Google is listed on the Debian
> Partners Program page [2], which states:
>
> "Google sponsors parts of Salsa's continuous integration infrastructure
> within Google Cloud Platform."
>
> "Google is one of the largest technology companies in the world,
> providing a wide range of Internet-related services and products as
> online advertising technologies, search, cloud computing, software, and
> hardware."
>
> Additionally, Google is a DebConf25 sponsor [3].
>
> Yet, Google has for a long time closely collaborated with the United
> States Government, specifically with the Defense and Intellence arms.
> This collaboration is no longer something that our project can continue
> to turn a blind toward. Just within the last year Google has increased
> this collaboration to the point of becoming a full-fledged and
> enthusiastic participant in the US defense industrial complex.
>
> 2024-04-09: "Google is now authorized to host classified data in the
> cloud" [4]
>
> "We're thrilled to announce another significant milestone for Google
> Public Sector: the authorization of Google Distributed Cloud Hosted to
> host Top Secret and Secret missions for the U.S. Intelligence Community,
> and Top Secret missions for the Department of Defense," Leigh Palmer,
> the company’s vice president of delivery and operations said at Google
> Cloud Next conference in Las Vegas. "This authorization underscores
> Google Public Sector's commitment to empowering government agencies with
> secure, cutting-edge technology."
>
> 2024-04-17: "Google Public Sector ‘hitting our stride’ in government
> market, CEO says" [5]
>
> "Being authorized on secret and top secret for the most stringent
> government requirements more than anything demonstrates Google's
> commitment to this market. I’m so proud of that. You know, I'm a mission
> junkie, former Navy officer, this is what I came to Google for: to be
> able to deliver on the promise of Google technology and those missions."
>
> This goes far beyond the US Defense and Intellence agencies purchasing
> the same mass market products which are available to everyone, far
> beyond benign public sector services for education and healthcare.
> Google is specifically tailoring products and services, in close
> collaboration with the US Defense and Intellence agencies, to
> specifically increase the capabilities of those agencies.
>
> Since there are people within the project who will not even travel to
> the US because of problematic policies and overreach by the government,
> especially by intelligence agencies, it seems highly problematic for us
> to continue accepting Google as a sponsor. Especially given the fact
> that Google has become a de facto part of the US government, and
> especially of its intellegence arm. I feel far more threatened by a
> continuing relationship between Debian and Google--knowing that Debian
> shares a computing platform and resources with the monsters responsible
> for thousands of drone strikes across the world, being responsible for
> countless civilian deaths, as well as who knows what other atrocities
> both inside the US and across the world--than by our former use of
> Twitter/X as a platform for publishing bits of news about the project.
> And a continuing relationship between Debian and Google objectively
> poses a far greater threat of far greater harm to far more people than
> did our former use of Twitter/X.
>
> I am calling for those responsible for the Debian Partners Program to
> immediately discontinue the partner relationship with Google and then
> for those responsible for managing the various Google-integrated and
> Google-hosted Debian services to being the process of divestiture.

Seriously, this is irksome.

Just state that you disagree about the Publicity Team Decision instead
of doing a ~straw man argument up to the absurd.

We're supposed to be grown ups. Maybe act accordingly?

-- 
PEB

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13700

Hi

On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 01:46:57PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 1/31/25 03:59, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > Yet, Google has for a long time closely collaborated with the United
> > States Government, specifically with the Defense and Intellence arms.

They provide services to whoever wants to pay for it, like almost any
other organization.  Limited by the laws they have to abide to.

> > I am calling for those responsible for the Debian Partners Program to
> > immediately discontinue the partner relationship with Google and then
> > for those responsible for managing the various Google-integrated and
> > Google-hosted Debian services to being the process of divestiture.

What would that mean?  Please list, from your perspective, all the
different parts this affects.

But why stop with Google?

OSU, home of OSUOSL and with it Debian infrastructure?  Takes money from
the DoD.  Brown University, home of ftp-master.debian.org?  Takes money
from the DoD.  At least in the USA this is quite common for universities
to have ties with them.

> I largely agree that we should reduce our use of sponsored hosting space in
> general, and Google (non-free) cloud platform specifically.
> To do this, Debian would need to run its own cloud platform as a
> replacement. I've been advocating for it, and volunteered to maintain an
> OpenStack cloud deployment for Debian own use.

Could you please estimate the required funds to do that?  Aka hardware
and hosting paid full?  At SPI we had around 50kUSD per year of
donations over the last years.  I can't imagine this is even remotely
enough to do that all in a sustainable manner.

Also, please list the people that would be capable to running an
OpenStack of sufficient quality for our use.  You alone are far from
enough.

Bastian

-- 
Landru! Guide us!
		-- A Beta 3-oid, "The Return of the Archons", stardate 3157.4

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13706

roberto@debian.org wrote:

>Since we as a project have left Twitter/X (as recently announced by our
>Publicity Team) on the basis of "We do not want to be present in a place
>where we cannot ensure that users will be respected and where abuse
>happens without consequences" [0] [1], I would like start a discussion
>about how we as a project can promptly sever ties with Google.
I have not been abused by Google and it generally does not appear to be
nazi-adjacent like Twitter, so I am good with our relationship with them.

>Yet, Google has for a long time closely collaborated with the United
>States Government, specifically with the Defense and Intellence arms.
If you are concerned about this then I recommend that you also reflect
on Debian preparing to cheerfully welcome a LoongArch port, which is
obviously a tool of Chinese soft power.

-- 
ciao,
Marco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13707

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Feb 6, 2025 12:47, Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> wrote:

> If you are concerned about this then I recommend that you also reflect 

> on Debian preparing to cheerfully welcome a LoongArch port, which is 

> obviously a tool of Chinese soft power. 


You mean, just like Intel CPUs and USA ? ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13708

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Guys come on what the hell. Since past few days all I have been hearing on
this mailing list is endless arguments sparked by debian team pulling out
of X.Since past few days you had been also bringing geo politics into open
source space. We all know when microsoft decided to pull plug  on windows ,
for our older systems and one who cannot afford buying new ones just yet
cause it hadn't been that long when they first bought their system we have
to end up relying on Linux that is our only hope when windows start slowing
down approaching end of life period.Debian is literally open source so we
can see what code is being put into it so it's no issues.
Don't bring geopolitics here yo'all forget why we joined this mailing at
first place. iT was to know internal updates about debian and to see if we
can contribute something to it. If debian team pulled off X , it's their
choice. It was undoubtedly that x sometimes interfered with other country's
politics and sometimes allowed hate speech but hey which platform didn't ?
Even reddit was no less. When debian joined x they joined it to keep users
informed about updates to Debian who are not in mailing list. We all hail
from different parts of world and literally every country's dev contributes
to open source. That's what open source is all about ,so how about we
accept what happened and move on.

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 at 21:01, <thomas@goirand.fr> wrote:

>
> On Feb 6, 2025 12:47, Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> wrote:
> > If you are concerned about this then I recommend that you also reflect
> > on Debian preparing to cheerfully welcome a LoongArch port, which is
> > obviously a tool of Chinese soft power.
>
> You mean, just like Intel CPUs and USA ? ;)
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13709

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Satvik Sinha dijo [Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 09:19:59PM +0530]:
> Guys come on what the hell. Since past few days all I have been hearing on
> this mailing list is endless arguments sparked by debian team pulling out
> of X.Since past few days you had been also bringing geo politics into open
> source space. We all know when microsoft decided to pull plug  on windows ,
> for our older systems and one who cannot afford buying new ones just yet
> cause it hadn't been that long when they first bought their system we have
> to end up relying on Linux that is our only hope when windows start slowing
> down approaching end of life period.Debian is literally open source so we
> can see what code is being put into it so it's no issues.
> (...)

Free software *is* politics. Involvement in a global-scale free software project
*is* by itself a political statement. No, it is not partisan- or
country-specific politics, but it is an expression of how a group of people want
to influence the way society works.

> Don't bring geopolitics here yo'all forget why we joined this mailing at
> first place. iT was to know internal updates about debian and to see if we
> can contribute something to it. If debian team pulled off X , it's their
> choice. It was undoubtedly that x sometimes interfered with other country's
> politics and sometimes allowed hate speech but hey which platform didn't ?
> Even reddit was no less. When debian joined x they joined it to keep users
> informed about updates to Debian who are not in mailing list. We all hail
> from different parts of world and literally every country's dev contributes
> to open source. That's what open source is all about ,so how about we
> accept what happened and move on.

Right, I see what you are pointing at here: all in all, the decision of the
Debian Publicity team to pull out from X/Twitter is theirs, as they are the
people doing that work; the decision was informed to the rest of the project and
to the world at large, because it is relevant, but it is that team that decides
how to use their time. That sparked a comment by a DD who is seemingly unhappy
and relates the decision to the political events in the USA -- Of course it
might be related!

But anyway, even if you don't want to be dragged into geopolitics,
debian-project is the list where we discuss non-technical aspects of the
project, and as such, it is the _best_ place to air our (project-related,
naturally) political positions, at least before they reach i.e. debian-vote.

   - Gunnar.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project

csiph-web