The first line of the documentation is pretty clear: “Bonfire is an open-source framework for building federated digital spaces where people can gather, interact, and form communities online.”

You’re making this comment in a community named after a specific software ideology.

Positioning the project. Putting the project’s value before the tool it produces or the problem it solves is a specific stylistic choice. Just not in the software projects you’re usually involved in.

It’s an elixir skeleton that runs a system of modules you can combine (just with configs) or that you can extend by adding new modules.

The skeleton does the bare minimum and the modules contain all the logic. It’s not a no-code tool (that would be astounding, but doesn’t exist yet), you still need to write some config files (flavours) or write some elixir.

In open source circles, a technical description of what a tool does might be the norm, but in many other spaces, signaling your values and ideology is more important than the technicalities. For you it’s buzzwords, for other people it means a very specific positioning.

This is a good starting point: https://trent.mirror.xyz/GDDRqetgglGR5IYK1uTXxLalwIH6pBF9nulmY9zarUw

Licenses don’t stop bombs. In general, informational freedoms always benefits the stronger actor, because they already have the means to exploit the information better than other actors. Legal restrictions are just a bump in the road if what you produced is really really valuable for a corporation or a state entity: they can reimplement it, exploiting the design and “trial-and-error” work embedded in whatever you produced, or they can simply ignore licenses because nobody is going to ask the Israeli’s military to respect a license when they are slaughtering civilians.

Social problems never have technical solutions.

If you want to make software that is not captured by state or corporate power, you must create software that is incompatible with whatever they need to do. Embed a social logic that is worthless to their system but useful to our system. Anything else is eventually going to be captured. There’s a lot of literature on anti-capture design, and some of it manages to rise above the purely techno-optimist logic and provide something useful.

It’s a toolkit to build federated apps, with a social media+blogging+collaboration platform built on top of it.

I know it’s a tough ask. In the meanwhile I’m exploring the possibility of embedding excalidraw into something else but I don’t know.

I already contribute to wikis on this topic, like Activist Handbook, but they are not the right format for what I need. Linked documents have limited expressivity and visual people are currently underserved, hence the diagram approach.

Another similar thing would be to use stuff like obsidian canvas which is something in between

Purist brainrot is thinking that criticizing moralistic politics means siding with zionists and being racist. Same energy of calling anti-semitic any criticism of Israel.

People commenting on the internet from thousands of KMs away in their room: “this is not enough, they should have done more”. It makes you feel good, because you are making a moral point about the insufficient morality of others. It makes you feel better than them.

Never punish somebody for taking a political step in the right direction. This is not about you feeling good but it’s about them building change. We can argue if change is possible within Israel’s society, but it’s not on the people who decided to do something.

DEI is definitely used in corporate environments. I understand this use of the term as “rightswashing”, where the corporate performs inclusivity without actually doing anything about it.

I followed a similar trajectory, leaving the tech sector to pursue politically-motivated jobs. Am I locked-in? Probably, my linkedin is full of agitprop. Do I care? No, the world is on fire, there’s no coming back. I get to the end of the month, I’m doing important stuff, fuck careers, there are more important things.

The person I know that got fired is even more gung-ho than me so I can imagine they don’t care either.

From what I know, no. It’s full of more politically-aligned workplaces, like NGOs and research groups, that crave politically-motivated people with tech skills. I know personally one of the fired workers that went on to do a PhD right after being fired.

I don’t know what understanding you have of this topic, but historically and presently, the Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are ideological opposites, with the latter spawning off of the first to accomodate pro-corporate, pro-capitalist positions.

Both of these are also different from the totality of entities proposing “open source licensing”, which is a much broader set.

Then nowadays the Free Software Movement lost its momentum and it has been subsumed into the idea of “FOSS”, but still, it should be treated as its own, dinstinct entity.

As for the genocide per default part: Its nonsense to believe that if open source didnt exist or was different that it would somehow lead to less genocide.

Open source is just a technical and legal reflection of a world and a time where Imperial venture capital benefited from the free flow of information. I think the author would agree that, if open source didn’t exist, something else would have enabled similar or different forms of Imperial oppression, including genocide. Same for the start-up ecosystem, digital capital taking over the financial economy and Western democracies and so on. Open Source enabled that? For sure. But if we want to play “what if”, any serious materialist analysis would conclude that Open Source was just a tool for digital capital to express itself and exploit workers. A tool that could have been replaced by something else.

the article doesn’t mention the Free Software Movement even once.

Also the article is making a point that you don’t need to side for genocide to enable a genocide. That’s the whole point.

you clearly have no clue what you’re talking about. The federal funding goes to Weizenbaum Institute, that is another very big institution in techno politics and other fields of research. You keep googling shit up.

funneling of grants towards her dubious work at TUB

Bro, don’t just google shit about scholars you have no clue about and make up fake accusations. She’s not doing research at TU Berlin, she’s just a lecturer there. She’s one of the most famous scholars in this field and she’s associated more strongly with DAIR, which is a thousand times more relevant in this discourse than TU, and DiPLab in Paris.

You clearly just googled her name, checked where she works, and made up some shit.

also shaming anybody for the labor they have to do to survive is the most reactionary patronizing bullshit ever.