This is what the people who are against "cancel culture" are trying to say (although, a lot of those people are still wrong and suck for other reasons): you basically got brief, out of context second-hand information and immediately jumped to the conclusion to boycott this company.

I think it's worth reading what the CEO has to say about it: https://community.frame.work/t/framework-supporting-far-righ...

Personally I don't get the impression that Framework is endorsing a particular view, nor are they directly sponsoring a specific individual or their views.

It becomes even more difficult when most of these open source projects aren't a one-person endeavor, even if they happen to have a single individual at the helm.

▲

konmok 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Personally I don't get the impression that Framework is endorsing a particular view, nor are they directly sponsoring a specific individual or their views.

I agree. However, I do think that Framework is taking a particularly cowardly stance by refusing to acknowledge community concerns, and I think that kind of behavior is exactly how far-right groups gain power in tech spaces. When one group just wants to live in peace, and another group wants to make the first group disappear, organizations that don't distinguish between the two ultimately drive out the peaceful group.

	▲	dangus 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I agree that your take is a very real thing. At the same time, I think there's a somewhat valid space for the psychology of this response. If I use Harry Potter as an example, I think Harry Potter fans fall in a handful of camps: 1. Agrees with JK Rowling on her anti-trans rhetoric 2. Grew up loving Harry Potter and detests JK Rowling's views, possibly to the point of a boycott 3. Has never heard of any of the controversy and is blissfully ignorant 4. Is aware of the controversy but never signed up for that discussion in the first place and is just here for wizard fiction, wishes the controversy never existed. I think the CEO of Framework is essentially going for #4 here, and I am quite mixed on whether that standpoint is enabling of problematic people or not. I can understand arguments both ways. For the role of a CEO, in this day and age, taking a polarized position does have the possibility of alienating half of your customer base, essentially a no-win scenario. #4 is also mixed with a sprinkle of "Sometimes saying too much and engaging too much in the argument is your own undoing and digging your own grave." Often CEOs that say nothing end up with better outcomes than those who take an active stance on issues. I can totally recognize that #4 is objectively more cowardly and less principled than #2, but I also don't know that we can expect 100% of generally good people to be freedom fighters.

▲

DetroitThrow 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So they're not sponsoring Omarchy sure, but that the CEO doesn't really respond to the parts where they've advertised Omarchy repeatedly is enough for me to close my wallet going forward. For me, this is a cut and dry issue and you don't have to endorse white supremacy to make it clear you don't have many issues with engaging white supremacists.

DHH has said things beyond the pale, that go as far to say that people like me are not welcome in spaces he tours, not because of my actions but instead my skin color. Framework can flirt with his projects if they want to. I just won't buy their products going forward, and it sounds like they're fine with that. Idrc if it's seen as contributing to cancel culture.

	▲	dangus 40 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I can appreciate that you informed yourself well on the issue and weren't just making a knee-jerk reaction like I originally suspected based on your first comment's brevity.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]